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=813668 --- Comment #5 from Steve Traylen <steve.traylen@xxxxxxx> 2012-04-27 18:02:51 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) > To sum up: > [?] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual > license. > The upstream has the following as license: > This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under > the same terms as Perl itself, either Perl version 5.10.0 or, at your option, > any later version of Perl 5 you may have available > I see that perl-5.12 on the node i'm sitting has: > (GPL+ or Artistic) and (GPLv2+ or Artistic) and Copyright Only and MIT and > Public Domain and UCD > What you have is: > GPL+ or Artistic which also what the guidelines have: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Perl but i don't know if the guidelines > are updated or where does the license i have come from. We assume the guidelines are correct and I'm confident they are. I think significantly "GPL+ or Artistic" is the standard for all 'same license as perl' ones. > [?] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a > separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. > The package doesn't include any license text file. Given that upstream refers > to perl i don't think this is needed. > The README has the license and this is included. That paragraph is quite oddly worded. > Finally i see that you require perl(Test::More). Is it really needed at run > time? i think this should be on buildrequires only. Quite correct. A couple of other changes as well: - Add requires openssh-clients - Add sample files as docs http://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/perl-Net-OpenSSH/perl-Net-OpenSSH.spec SRPM URL: http://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/perl-Net-OpenSSH/perl-Net-OpenSSH-0.57-1.fc16.src.rpm -- 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