https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885495
--- Comment #4 from Yogaraj Alamenda <yogarajx.alame...@intel.com> --- (In reply to Carl George 🤠from comment #3) > Uploading the files anywhere online is fine, as long as the spec file is > marked as a plain text file so fedora-review works. If you build the > package in copr [0], the build will include a copy of the spec file and SRPM > that are easy to link to. Some people will upload those files to their > fedorapeople.org space [1], but that requires already being part of at least > one group other than the CLA group. > > Adding a license in a comment of the spec file is only appropriate if you > wish for the spec file itself to be available under a different license than > the default MIT license specified by the FPCA [2]. This does not have to > match the software being packaged. I'd recommend removing it as well for > simplicity, but it's not strictly required. > > I've marked this bug as depending on the qatlib review that I've already > started, and assigning it to myself to do this full review later. > > [0] https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org > [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/fedorapeople.org > [2] > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#License_of_Fedora_SPEC_Files Thanks Carl George. When you find time could you please complete this Spec file review and let us know your comments -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
