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=458826 --- Comment #11 from Dan Horák <dan@xxxxxxxx> 2009-03-26 07:20:27 EDT --- (In reply to comment #10) > I don't think there is anything else I can reasonably check. I didn't paste in > a run through my usual checklist but I did look over everything that I could > actually check. We hope to have Fedora/s390x installable during late April or early May. And with the Hercules emulator anybody can try it. > There's one issue I see, which I don't think is major: the license on the > metapackage is a bit confusing, because it only contains a single text file > which isn't itself "GPLv2 and GPLv2+ and CPL". I don't really know what's > appropriate, but I don't think that using the union of the licenses of the > packages that will be pulled in is any worse than saying "Public Domain" or > whatever. > > There's also the interesting question of whether LD_PRELOAD is considered > "linking" and how that intersects with the incompatibility of the CPL with > other licenses. I don't think it matters for this package because, among the > binaries included in this package, there's no GPL/CPL linking going on as far > as I can tell. I see you have already opened that on fedora-legal, thanks. > Anyway, this package looks vastly better than the original, and I don't see > anything else to complain about. Thanks for your patience. Well, it's rather me who should thank for patience. > APPROVED Thanks for the review. -- 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