https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143315 --- Comment #6 from Benson Muite <benson_muite@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- b) This is probably a good discussion to have. Packaging guidelines do require licenses for material that is installed. It may have been missed previously, but in my opinion is good to do going forward. You pointed out link to license information which I was not aware of. Thank you for this. This is the only thing that needs to be clarified for me. c) Thanks for this information. Maybe something needs to be updated in fedora-review? This does not affect the current review. d) This makes review easier since one of the things to check is if the package builds on primary architectures. Will rebuild on copr, but many people will build all the primary architectures when submitting for review. f) Have not done a thorough evaluation of the gem working, but because tests pass expect it should work. -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143315 _______________________________________________ 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 Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
