Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=917330
--- Comment #5 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com> ---
(In reply to comment #4)
(In reply to comment #3)
[cut]
> - I can't find any copyright notice in this. Shouldn't the license be
> Public Domain?
The license I see is: "You may freely use this code in any way you can think
of." Which, while quite permissive, does not say "this code is released into
the public domain." So I think "copyright only" with basically unlimited
license is more accurate than Public Domain.
At a second thought you're right.
Agreed.
> ===== MUST items =====
>
> Generic:
> [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
> Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
> "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output
of
> licensecheck in /home/mk/FedoraReview/917330-python-
> rsslib/licensecheck.txt
Sorry, what's the issue here?
Already handled above, sorry for clumsy writing.
Forget it ;)
[cut]
New spec, SRPM. Bumped to 0-2.20130310, fixed BR on python2-devel, removed
python_sitelib macro:
http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SPECS/python-rsslib.spec Old spec file?!
New spec file bundled in srpm is OK
Thanks for the review!
Your're welcome!
A last remark: You can simplify the spec even further using the upcoming patch
which evolved after writing the review. Use it if you want, no review remark as
such.
***Approved
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=jhaWWZLkUX&a=cc_unsubscribe