https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972943 Kashyap Chamarthy <kchamart@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #17 from Kashyap Chamarthy <kchamart@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Alec Leamas from comment #15) > (In reply to Kashyap Chamarthy from comment #14) > [cut] > > (1) Lincences > > > > Unknown or generated > > -------------------- > > > > /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/lpf- > > 46ae0c3b2791013a2b5b1d03137538b9bc906350/scripts/build_error.py > > > > /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/lpf- > > 46ae0c3b2791013a2b5b1d03137538b9bc906350/scripts/update.py > Even if these files are not marked properly, the overall licensing > situation for this package should be clear form the README and the LICENSE > file IMHO. If you insist, I can patch the files. However, I've approved > some packages myself containing files with these licenses since I havn't > found anything in the guidelines which says I shouldn't in cases like this?! Ok, ACK, I'm not rigid here. > > > > (2) No %check? > Unit tests are on the todo-list but yet not in place. Is %check required in > the guidelines? Well, not mandatory. Once you have them, you can update the spec. > > > > (3) Rationale for the non-standard-dir-perm (from rpmlint errors) > Because user modifies files owned by the lpg user pkg-build using group > permissions, the 775 permissions is needed to allow this. There's some more > in the README on this. ACK. APPROVED. (Sorry for the delay.) -- 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=Bp2QKO0TbH&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review