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=650643
Dan Horák <dan(a)danny.cz> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flag| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #14 from Dan Horák <dan(a)danny.cz> 2010-11-22 11:03:57 EST ---
(In reply to comment #13)
(In reply to comment #12)
> - no diff between the included source archive and the one reproduced with the
> steps written in spec file
? Not sure what you mean here.
just a note how I've compared the sources
> - I think the version should be 0.6.2b instead of 0.6.2
Alphanumeric chars in the version are frowned upon / disallowed by the
guidelines I could add the b to the release field.
OK, let it be as it's now (0.6.2)
> - there are 3 files in the src/elements directory that are
LGPLv2+ licensed,
> looks like as an omission, the copyright holder is the same as in the MIT
> licensed files, also it's fixed in 0.7.5, I am not sure what will be the best
> solution here ...
I think that given that this is a library, and we're talking LGPL not GPL, that
it probably is best / easiest to just put "MIT and LGPLv2+" in the license
tag.
Do you agree?
yes
This package is APPROVED.
--
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.