Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: rubygems - the Ruby standard for packaging ruby libraries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220683 ------- Additional Comments From kevin@xxxxxxxxx 2007-01-05 14:54 EST ------- In reply to comment #4: >To thet best of my knowledge, teh guidelines only require that the license is >included in the rpm if it is distributed by upstream in the tarball - the lack >of a license file should therefore not block this review. Correct... my concern isn't that the license text isn't included, it's that there is nothing at all in the package referring to what the license _is_. Everything says 'see LICENSE.txt'. Not to say that it would happen, but they could ship a LICENSE.txt in the next release that was not acceptable for extras, and say 'Thats what we always meant". >There's been nothing but crickets so far on my request to add the license to >the tarball, so it might be a little bit before upstream fixes it. Anoying. :( I'll try and think of how we can address this... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review