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=496606 Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola@xxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola@xxxxxx> 2009-04-20 16:56:43 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > (In reply to comment #1) > > MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. > > NEEDSFIX > > - According to README: > > This package is free software; you can redistribute it and/or > > modify it under the same terms as Perl itself. > > - License of Perl is: (GPL+ or Artistic) and (GPLv2+ or Artistic) > > The perl license is GPL+ or Artistic, according to > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Perl#License_tag > > Why do you say it should be (GPL+ or Artistic) and (GPLv2+ or Artistic) ? I > never saw that until today. Okay, I missed the guideline on that one. Thanks. rpm -qi perl states: License: (GPL+ or Artistic) and (GPLv2+ or Artistic). Maybe it's a bug in the perl RPM...? The package has been APPROVED -- 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