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=650643 Dan HorÃk <dan@xxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #14 from Dan HorÃk <dan@xxxxxxxx> 2010-11-22 11:03:57 EST --- (In reply to comment #13) > (In reply to comment #12) > > - no diff between the included source archive and the one reproduced with the > > steps written in spec file > > ? Not sure what you mean here. just a note how I've compared the sources > > - I think the version should be 0.6.2b instead of 0.6.2 > > Alphanumeric chars in the version are frowned upon / disallowed by the > guidelines I could add the b to the release field. OK, let it be as it's now (0.6.2) > > - there are 3 files in the src/elements directory that are LGPLv2+ licensed, > > looks like as an omission, the copyright holder is the same as in the MIT > > licensed files, also it's fixed in 0.7.5, I am not sure what will be the best > > solution here ... > > I think that given that this is a library, and we're talking LGPL not GPL, that > it probably is best / easiest to just put "MIT and LGPLv2+" in the license tag. > Do you agree? yes This package is APPROVED. -- 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