[Bug 639594] Review Request: scout - A CLI interface to Tomboy notes and Gnote

[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=639594

--- Comment #10 from Martin Gieseking <martin.gieseking at uos.de> 2010-10-12 02:30:27 EDT ---
Thanks for the feedback, Gabriel.

(In reply to comment #9)
> yes, the license of the project is a 3-clause BSD, as found in the file
> LICENSE.

That's fine. Currently, it looks like a 4 clause license because of the
additional asterisk before "this". Maybe you can drop it. But that's just
cosmetic.


> about the point: "Neither of source file contains any license notice".
> Does this mean packaging requires that all source files contain a line that
> mentions the license?

No, it doesn't. Damian just pointed out that a note on your project website
says there are short license notices present in the source files, but they
aren't. It's an inconsistency but not a reason to block the review here.


> for the name of the tar archive: this is indeed a bit of a problem. It's
> probably due to the way GitHub names the archive files.
> FWIW, for the .deb packages, I use a service [1] that generates stable URLs
> from tagged archives on github. I hope it can be useful for RPM also.

Is version 0.4-0-ga2ae61f the official release of version 0.4? In this case the
additional hash is a bit confusing because it makes the tarball look like a
snapshot release of an upcoming version 0.4 that may still change. 
If possible, please provide a tarball without additional tags in the filename
when releasing a final version.


Damian, sorry, I didn't intend to take over your review. Please continue
reviewing this package submission.

-- 
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.