https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1323186 Neil Horman <nhorman@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(nhorman@xxxxxxxxx |needinfo?(rick.tierney@inte |m) |l.com) --- Comment #77 from Neil Horman <nhorman@xxxxxxxxxx> --- No, we don't need to do a new reivew, but these would have been good changes to make during the initial review. I assume you're changing the version to 1.7 then? If so, thats fine. Regarding the license file, that really doesn't make any sense to me. Are you saying that your legal team wants the license to be co-located with the application binary? That seems fairly silly to me. To suggest that they are not readily available in the license area of the filesystem, but are readily available if they are in the same directory as the binary suggests that they don't really understand how rpm installation works. Strictly speaking, adding the symlinks that you suggest violates the FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/), to which fedora adheres. Please don't add those symlinks there, as it co-mingles applications and ancillary content. -- 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx