Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=245688 --- Comment #26 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-01-05 11:37:52 EDT --- I don't see why you need the LICENSE.txt patch. Why not just remove it? There is no requirement to ship the license text if the upstream does not do so. When upstream gets around to including the license text, this package can then include it. All of the program source files seem to have the correct license blocks so there is no confusion as to the actual license in use. Yes, the symlinks need to be made relative. Think about what happens when you install into a chroot. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review