Bug 225652: Merge Review: comps-extras Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Roozbeh Pournader <roozbeh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> has denied Jeremy Katz <katzj@xxxxxxxxxx>'s request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225652 ------- Additional Comments from Roozbeh Pournader <roozbeh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (In reply to comment #2) > > W: comps-extras no-url-tag > > Yep, there's not one. Use http://www.fedoraproject.org/ then. > There isn't an upstream tarball location. The upstream _are_ the packages > that are built. If there's a source control system with public anonymous access, please point to that. Checking the included tarball against the upstream tarballs are a MUST item in the review list. (BLOCKER) > > * GPL may not be a very appropriate license for a set of PNG images > > It's not normal, but it's fine. Then please include a copy of the GPL license in the source tarball (and , and add a note somewhere in the tarball or the comment field of the image files themselves that the files are licensed under the GPL. Presently, the only mention of the license is the spec file, which means that one cannot confirm that it is used correctly. If there is no mention of free software license somewhere, one should assume that it's proprietary, at least according to the US law. (BLOCKER) > Given that there's nothing actually done, this doesn't actually make a > difference Agreed. But then please remove the line "make" from the %build section. The section is allowed to be empty. > One better; added the directory as %dir and then the files underneath. Choice of style really, but keeping two copies of the same info in two different places is not what I would personally recommend. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review