https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2315991 Neal Gompa <ngompa13@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Status|ASSIGNED |POST --- Comment #6 from Neal Gompa <ngompa13@xxxxxxxxx> --- So this package is kind of special, so I'm going to treat this a bit differently... Review notes: * Package "builds" and installs (it trivially puts files in a specific location) * Licensing is "correct" (as it is an aggregate of the license tags of all included packages) * No serious rpmlint errors I wonder if we should treat this the same way we treat the license tag for container images and just put the MIT license here (since that's the license of the Fedora collection)? It seems more reasonable to do that rather than have this enormous blob of licenses... I guess for now we can leave it this way and then ask afterward if we can simplify this, because I'd rather not have this crazy license tag... PACKAGE APPROVED. -- 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=2315991 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202315991%23c6 -- _______________________________________________ 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
