https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1757379 --- Comment #6 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Alessio from comment #4) > (In reply to Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) from comment #1) > > [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > > ... > > - setup.py says MIT and the LICENSE file is MIT: > > ... > > - The pynetdicom/_version.py file says that some part of the code there is > > Apache and BSD. > > So, what is the right license? > License: MIT and ASL 2.0 and BSD No, MIT should be enough. The comment merely states that they've picked code from projects that are ASL and BSD---the file itself is not ASL/BSD. You could/should e-mail the -devel list to confirm :) (In reply to Alessio from comment #5) > Another question. > Is it better to use the source stuff from pupi or from github? > As far as I can see, pypi stuff doesn't contain docs. This is up to you and doesn't usually make too much of a difference. Using pypi is easier, you can then use the %pypi_source macro, for example. Mostly, upstream does not include docs in the pypi tar, though. Quite a few don't even include tests in the pypi tar. So, in such scenarios, using the Github tar is the only way. -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
