Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=951775 Pierre-YvesChibon <pingou@xxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |pingou@xxxxxxxxxxxx Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |pingou@xxxxxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Pierre-YvesChibon <pingou@xxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Looking at the header of the source the appropriate license tag appears to be LGPLv3+, maybe upstream would want to precise this in the setup.py The files for the tests are licensed under BSD 3-clauses, so the license tag might need to be adjusted accordingly (but if the tests are not installed on the filesystem, maybe not, maybe worth to ask spot about this). Btw, any reason to mark the link in the %description in this way? Otherwise: * package meets naming guidelines (you can use %{modname} is some more places if you like) * package meets packaging guidelines * spec is clean * license LGPLv3+ is fine (license tag needs to be adjusted) * source matches upstream: 6c092cce2b2ade47054aea6657173cbf * builds fine on rawhide and F18 * no missing BR * no unnecessary BR * no locales * not relocatable * owns all directories that it creates * no duplicate files * permissions ok * macro use consistent * code, not content * no need for -docs * nothing in %doc affects runtime * no need for .desktop file Let's clear up the how the License should be and I'll approve the package. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=XGhJQez0wt&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review