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=487098
Dan Young dyoung@mesd.k12.or.us changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(dmalcolm@redhat.c | |om)
--- Comment #17 from Dan Young dyoung@mesd.k12.or.us 2009-10-15 18:42:32 EDT --- (In reply to comment #16)
My understanding of the state of this bug is that I'm the reviewer, and that I've approved the review, and that whoever is to be the owner is now responsible for actually requesting the package import.
However, looking back over the history, it's not clear to me who the maintainer is to be: Ramez or Dan, and thus who's responsible for doing the next steps on this review. I'm happy to be maintainer or comaintainer of this package, but I don't know if that's acceptable within the package review rules.
Ramez? Dan? Do you still want to maintain this package for Fedora?
Aggh, sorry I've been flaky on this. So found on more niggling license issue while adding the comment #12 additions, specifically that "GPL" is not a valid license tag (at least rpmlint complains). JQuery appears to be MIT or GPLv2 (no "or later" that I can find). Would a License tag of "MIT and (MIT or GPLv2)" work? I'll push the new package out ASAP if Dave signs off. Thanks,