Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xorg-x11-docs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199927 mharris@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO_REPORTER |ASSIGNED ------- Additional Comments From mharris@xxxxxxxxxx 2006-07-24 20:17 EST ------- (In reply to comment #2) > - Obsoletes: XFree86-doc, xorg-x11-doc; Do we provide those in this package? No, but nothing should depend on them either. The packages didn't even exist in FC5, so if anything depended on them we probably would have gotten a bug report by now. I can add Provides anyway though if you prefer, just for completeness. ;) > Other than that, the only rpmlint errors are ignorable. > > Approving (if you address the above issue) All the X packages have "License: MIT/X11", however technically speaking different parts of X are under slightly different licenses. Individual source files are sometimes under a different license. The majority of all of the licences are the MIT licence, or very close clone of it, or of the BSD no-ad-clause license. If there's a generic text that should be used instead of "MIT/X11" for quirks of this nature, I can change it though. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review