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=499993 --- Comment #4 from Rakesh Pandit <rpandit@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-05-22 05:27:49 EDT --- Reply from author: ======================================================================== Hi, Rakesh Pandit schrieb: > Hello Mat, > > I am packaging dvtm for fedora: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499993 > > There are some issues which I need to address before this gets accepted: > 1. The source files don't have license header information. I personally don't want to clutter all files with a license header which is almost as long as the code. > 2. The package just contains LICENSE file for MIT license not LGPLv2. Site mentions project is under both licenses .. so a copy of later will help. dvtm as whole is MIT/X11 the madtty.{c,h} files are LGPL. I think it's common for distros to have the full license text under something like /usr/share/common-licenses I therfore see no need to include it in the source tarball. See the following link for how debian handles it: http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/d/dvtm/dvtm_0.5.1-2/dvtm.copyright Regards, Marc -- Marc Andre Tanner >< http://www.brain-dump.org/ >< GPG key: CF7D56C0 ======================================================================= -- 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