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=487098 Dan Young <dyoung@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(dmalcolm@xxxxxxxx | |om) --- Comment #17 from Dan Young <dyoung@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-10-15 18:42:32 EDT --- (In reply to comment #16) > My understanding of the state of this bug is that I'm the reviewer, and that > I've approved the review, and that whoever is to be the owner is now > responsible for actually requesting the package import. > > However, looking back over the history, it's not clear to me who the maintainer > is to be: Ramez or Dan, and thus who's responsible for doing the next steps on > this review. I'm happy to be maintainer or comaintainer of this package, but I > don't know if that's acceptable within the package review rules. > > Ramez? Dan? Do you still want to maintain this package for Fedora? Aggh, sorry I've been flaky on this. So found on more niggling license issue while adding the comment #12 additions, specifically that "GPL" is not a valid license tag (at least rpmlint complains). JQuery appears to be MIT or GPLv2 (no "or later" that I can find). Would a License tag of "MIT and (MIT or GPLv2)" work? I'll push the new package out ASAP if Dave signs off. Thanks, -- 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