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 #10 from Martin Gieseking <martin.gieseking@xxxxxx> 2010-10-12 02:30:27 EDT --- Thanks for the feedback, Gabriel. (In reply to comment #9) > yes, the license of the project is a 3-clause BSD, as found in the file > LICENSE. That's fine. Currently, it looks like a 4 clause license because of the additional asterisk before "this". Maybe you can drop it. But that's just cosmetic. > 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? No, it doesn't. Damian just pointed out that a note on your project website says there are short license notices present in the source files, but they aren't. It's an inconsistency but not a reason to block the review here. > 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. Is version 0.4-0-ga2ae61f the official release of version 0.4? In this case the additional hash is a bit confusing because it makes the tarball look like a snapshot release of an upcoming version 0.4 that may still change. If possible, please provide a tarball without additional tags in the filename when releasing a final version. Damian, sorry, I didn't intend to take over your review. Please continue reviewing this package submission. -- 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