https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243758 --- Comment #16 from Till Hofmann <hofmann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) from comment #15) > Could be that Rawhide is strictly needed. Packages are to be reviewed and > approved for Rawhide, with extra work on branches being optional. > > The generated %files lists contain %dir lines: > [...] Thank you for the explanation. Indeed, the directories are owned by the packages in a Rawhide build [1]. But assuming this package is to be pushed to f23/f22, shouldn't this be fixed anyway? > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/ > > LicensingGuidelines > > > These guides are in need of an update > > They are pretty explicit about what the package maintainer ought to do: > > Inform upstream, try to resolve the licensing issues and get the missing > license text(s) added, and if upstream "is unresponsive, unable, or > unwilling", add the missing licensing terms to the Fedora package. > > So, the question here is: Has upstream been contacted about it? Yes, upstream has been contacted yesterday, cf. comment 1. But I wouldn't say they are "unresponsive, unable, or unwilling" just because they haven't replied after one day. Therefore my initial comment 3 about the license file. [1] http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10795138 -- 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