https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081434 Patrick Uiterwijk <puiterwijk@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |puiterwijk@xxxxxxxxxx Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |puiterwijk@xxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #17 from Patrick Uiterwijk <puiterwijk@xxxxxxxxxx> --- I am really doubtful about the inclusion of the database. For first, I think it would be best to have a seperate package for the database, so someone could update the database seperately from the code. Also, I wonder about the licensing: is this database exempt from the "Terms of Use" on your website, as those are incompatible with Fedora licensing? Also, would it be possible to ship CSV versions in the upstream tarball, and then compile them to the binary database on package build? I will officially claim this review, and hence clear the NEEDSPONSOR flag. Please note that this in no way implies that I will approve it yet, as I might still deny it if the licensing issues regarding the database are not resolved for example. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review