Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=425882 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #44 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-11-24 23:37:01 EDT --- The opinion from the legal folks is that even if a srpm creates subpackages that are not related in name or dependency chain, it is still only necessary to include the license file in one of them. It's been discussed, however, and it's also not a blocker if that's really what you want to do. Honestly I would suggest that any templates or automated tools not have %files lists with duplicated files so that less experienced packagers don't get the impression that it is necessary to duplicate the license file or acceptable in general to have duplicate entries in %files lists. I believe that with the patch in comment 42, this package is fine, and I'm happy to see this through. APPROVED I guess we need another guideline update to handle the changed scriptlets, though. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review