https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223990 --- Comment #7 from Robert Scheck <redhat-bugzilla@xxxxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Andrew Beekhof from comment #4) > 'invalid-url' is adequately explained in the spec file, although a link to > the original tarball might be a good. I don't think Fedora isn't allowed to promote potentially legally encumbered software directly, this is also why OpenSSL is hubbled (as the comment says). Given latest Fedora doesn't do this as well, I would raise FE-Legal here, if you insist to a link/URL to the original tarball. > Could I get some comment on 'strange-permission' and 'hidden-file-or-dir' > though? These files are created by something like fipscheck(1). They are treated as "hidden" because they start with a "." - which is how the concept works. But I don't know (and don't see) why there are treated as 'strange-permission'. (In reply to Andrew Beekhof from comment #6) > wrt. man pages, does the new one differ much from the existing one? If not, > perhaps create a simlink so that people can see what it is/does (without > needing to know the original binary name). Most of the man pages are the same or at least quite similar from what I can see. Given the old man pages will be anyway always there, I am not sure if it makes sense to supply the "new" ones being not really a benefit but having strange names (because otherwise they would conflict with the main openssl packages). The online documentation of OpenSSL is more up-to-date through. I think (if at all) it only makes sense for "man openssl101e" given that is the only binary being named different where one could expect another man page. Something else left? -- 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