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=204975 Milan Crha <mcrha@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mcrha@xxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #9 from Milan Crha <mcrha@xxxxxxxxxx> 2010-03-18 08:36:27 EDT --- As this is assigned to a review of vigra-1.6.0-2.1, then I'm using it for my question: I see that .spec file has spec license MIT, same as is shown in the LICENSE.txt file, but the "License features" says "Source code: Adobe". I guess it should be also "Source code: MIT", shouldn't it? Apart of this the .spec file looks good from my point of view. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review