https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1582876 --- Comment #6 from Michael Cronenworth <mike@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #5) > I'm mainly using "make %{?_smp_mflags}" for symmetry with the custom install > command, but I can change it if desired. You felt, strangely, compelled to point it out in my review. I honestly don't care. > We're explicitly not supposed to do that: > > > If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the > > license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the > > license(s) for the package is included in %license. That is a review checklist item and not the packaging guideline for licensing. The Packaging Guidelines for Licensing are clear you must include a copy of the full license text. There are instructions on when upstream does not provide a copy. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text You are providing no license text for either the perl module or the bundled library. Obviously because upstream does not provide a file for either, but it must be provided. -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/message/ZUCILINBEYBTUKNUTVIUIUOCU2BBDIHB/
