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=484808 --- Comment #3 from Parag AN(पराग) <panemade@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-02-10 09:13:56 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > 1) Because procfs also exists in other OSes, such as Solaris, where this idea, > AFAIK, came from. And the files parsed have very much Linux specific keys and > formats, so having "linux" in the name is needed. > That is ok then. > 2) All the .py files state that the files are under GPLv2, as does the specfile > License tag. Is it really a requirement that even with this clearly stated we > need a copy of the license in a LICENSE named file? > > If that is the case, sure, I can do it, and will as well as to submit a patch > for rpmlint to warn about that :-) SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. I will say that either you can add license text as header in all .py files or include separate license text file. see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text you can then include license file as %doc 3) F6 is already EOL and since F7 we have python >= 2.5 so you can change %if "%{python_ver}" >= "2.5" %{python_sitelib}/*.egg-info %endif to %{python_sitelib}/*.egg-info only -- 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