https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1235305 --- Comment #10 from Sören Möller <soerenmoeller2001@xxxxxxxxx> --- Hi Jeff Thanks for the comments. (In reply to Jeff Backus from comment #8) > (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". OK, that makes sense, thank you. > > - 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. Thank you for the pointer, I didn't know that /usr/lib/rpm/rpmrc was the appropriate place to look, and will use that for future revies. Best Sören -- 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