https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1235305 --- Comment #8 from Jeff Backus <jeff.backus@xxxxxxxxx> --- Hi Sören, Nice job on the review. A couple of notes: (In reply to Sören Möller from comment #4) > - Thank you for the license clarification, I think I agree that all of the > files are under licenses that are fine for Fedora. I am just in doubt, what > should be written in the License-field of the spec file. I think "BSD" > (which is the short name for both BSD (2 clause) and BSD (3 clause) is > correct, but hope the "real" reviewer will be more certain. My understanding is that the 2-clause and 3-clause forms are considered interchangeable. Regardless, both have the same shorthand in the license table, so the answer is "BSD". > - I am unsure about the best name for the manpage. I interprete > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Manpages as if it should > be called "hitch-openssl", but I am far from sure. My reading of the guidelines is that manpages should match the names of the executables, i.e. hitch. > - I am unsure how to chekck if "%build honors applicable compiler flags or > justifies otherwise.", although I think it does as it does what I expected > in build.log and no obvious changes in the spec-file I compare the contents of build.log with the appropriate optflags line in /usr/lib/rpm/rpmrc. Regards, Jeff -- 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