Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957918 --- Comment #2 from Paulo Andrade <paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andrade@xxxxxxxxx> --- Issues: 1. Please provide some information of the data files in test/data. Are all of them created for the sole purpose of test cases, otherwise what is the source of them? At least the binary ones need some information about origin. 2. test/md5.c and test/md5.h (and src/md5.{c,h}) have a restrictive text license, is it linked to the library? (appears to be, besides not being in objdump output) 3. Could be a good idea to move license information from docs/CREDITS to a LICENSE file in the toplevel, but COPYING.LIB is also thre, so not a big issue. I am particularly interested in information on this entry in CREDITS: ---%<--- Powerpack depacker ppcrack 0.1 - decrypts PowerPacker encrypted data files with brute force by Stuart Caie <kyzer@xxxxxx>, this software is in the Public Domain ---%<--- 4. There are binaries in docs also, e.g. docs/st02-ok.sample. I believe it would be easier to get the package included in Fedora if the tarball was split in two, with data files in a secondary tarball, and only the source code in the main one. It is really bad that it would prevent running %check, but without some clear information about origin of the data files it cannot be added (unless FE-LEGAL approves it). -- 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=DI3JHk6JJo&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review