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=615153 --- Comment #6 from Germán Racca <gracca@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-07-17 18:03:37 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) Hello Ankur: > Yes. I think that would be better. Well...I'm not sure right now if it is better to package them separately, because this version of tint2 has a config tool, called tint2conf, which once opened it uses tintwizard.py to configure the theme. But coming back to the license issue...is it not allowed to use a combination of 2 licenses in a single package? Could you please clarify this to me? Because in [1] says we can. If this is the case, I can package tint2 and tintwizard.py together without any problem. [1]https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios > It still shouldn't call it a binary AFAIK. It's a python script. Although I may > be wrong. I'd suggest asking upstream to make up a man page for tintwizard and > include it in the distribution too. Certainly I could suggest upstream to add a man page for tintwizard.py, but I don't think it is essential here because it is only a warning and to write a man page could take a long time... Ankur, again many thanks for your time, and I would like you to clarify my doubts in order to go on with this package. Regards, German. -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review