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=639594 --- Comment #9 from Gabriel Filion <lelutin@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-10-11 19:42:49 EDT --- yes, the license of the project is a 3-clause BSD, as found in the file LICENSE. only the file format-subst.pl is under LGPL-v2 and this file is useful only when working in the git repository (it generates the file with the version tag). it shouldn't change anything in an exported archive and it is not installed with the python code. about the point: "Neither of source file contains any license notice". Does this mean packaging requires that all source files contain a line that mentions the license? for the name of the tar archive: this is indeed a bit of a problem. It's probably due to the way GitHub names the archive files. FWIW, for the .deb packages, I use a service [1] that generates stable URLs from tagged archives on github. I hope it can be useful for RPM also. about the name clash: argh! I made sure I searched around to see if other projects already used this name. if possible to package it without changing the name yet another time, I'd be grateful. [1]:http://githubredir.debian.net/ -- 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