On 2023-02-11 07:04, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
Please base the f38-background.spec on the f37-background.spec.
Especially the license tag.
According the packaging guidelines the license tag for new packages
should be in SPDX form.
|This has been already changed in f37-backgrounds for some time.|
Please base the f38-background.spec on the f37-background.spec.
Especially the license tag.
According the packaging guidelines the license tag for new packages should be
in SPDX form.
|This has been already changed in f37-backgrounds for some time.|
|https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/f37-backgr
On 2023-02-10 12:15, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Note, with the exception, there's no need to file a review ticket.
You can just close that as fixed. The exception there bypasses the
requirement for a review.
Thanks for working on this...
kevin
No problem. Fully noted.
--
Luya Tshimbalanga
Fedora D
On Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 07:42:35PM -0800, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote:
> Hello team,
Hey there.
> I filed an exemption[1] for f38-backgrounds packaging review[2] as
> suggestion from desktop team on discussion last year. The spec file remains
> virtually unchanged other than an updated default wallp
Hello team,
I filed an exemption[1] for f38-backgrounds packaging review[2] as
suggestion from desktop team on discussion last year. The spec file
remains virtually unchanged other than an updated default wallpaper.
Thamks.
Ref:
[1] https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/51051
