[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 425882] Review Request: ghc-zlib - zlib bindings for ghc

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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 at math.uh.edu> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+




--- Comment #44 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu>  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.