https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2299556
Peter Lemenkov <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?([email protected] | |m) | --- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Jonathan Steffan from comment #3) > [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate > file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. > > BSD 3-Clause License is not included. However, it is included in full on > each of the source files. I don't know if that counts. I think it's ok. However in such a cases we have a policy that we should contact upstream and ask them to provide licensing terms in a separate file which I've just done here: * https://github.com/tomas-abrahamsson/gpb/pull/235 > Additionally, I don't know the consequence of "erlang-gpb.noarch: W: > beam-was-not-recompiled" and if it's okay or not. This is a false positive. I'll look into this someday. My wild guess our build tool which we're using for Erlang stuff (rebar3) doesn't care about preserving timestamps at all or messes up with meta-information in some other ways. -- 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=2299556 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202299556%23c4 -- _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] 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/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
