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=784589 --- Comment #4 from Petr Šabata <psabata@xxxxxxxxxx> 2012-01-31 04:37:20 EST --- (In reply to comment #3) > (snip) > > [!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > > I'm not sure about that one: Public domain is probably compatible (as with the > GPL) and you can re-license it as MIT. 'Public domain' is okay according to Fedora licensing [1]. I, as a distributor, don't plan to re-license upstream content. Let's leave that to users. > (snip) > > [x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent. > > Not silent, but nothing to worry about. I've changed the spelling to 'file-system' since I had done other changes to upstream description too (like letter case). > (snip) > > [?]: SHOULD Package functions as described. It does -- try it, it's fun :) > (snip) > > [!]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed > files. > > The manpage looses its original timestamp. Fixed. -- [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing -- 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