https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344276 --- Comment #34 from Sachidananda Urs <surs@xxxxxxxxxx> --- > I believe the package is good and most issues have been reasoned, > but will ask for two extra changes before approving the package and > sponsoring you: > > o Use the same tarball in the srpm and upstream. I believe the > upstream tarball was regenerated, thus difference checksum, as > contents are the same. Ack! Will do that. > o Do a minor license breakdown about the installed GPLv3 files. > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/ > LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios > Otherwise, it should not be required to also install a GPLv3 license file. Paulo, I need a bit of help here, regarding the license. The LICENSE file says GPLv2 however none of the source files actually are version 2. This mismatch has happened somewhere earlier in the project because it was overlooked. I would like to replace the GPLv2 LICENSE file with v3 and continue with v3 in future. Can you advice if it is fine? -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
