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=471231 --- Comment #20 from Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-08-14 13:11:26 EDT --- (In reply to comment #19) > Thanks for the precision, Spot. I'll do it very soon. > But I wonder how to name and/or version the package, since this case is not > listed in the package naming guidelines, and the packaged tarball will not > match upstream's. I can imagine commenting the spec file like in the CVS > snapshot case, but it is nether a prerelease, nor a postrelease (in fact, it is > a custom release)... Can you help me on this topic ? Thank you. So, what you need to do is this: Take the tarball upstream provides and unpack it. Then, remove the files which we do not have permission to redistribute, and then make a new tarball with the same basename as the upstream tarball, but append "-clean" to the end of it. Finally, in the spec file, refer to the -clean tarball (without a URL), and add comments that point to the original upstream tarball and how you generated the new -clean tarball: # The upstream tarball contains icons which we could not determine the licensing # for. The original source was found here: http://foo.bar/baz.tar.gz # To generate the clean tarball, run: # tar xvfz baz.tar.gz # rm -rf baz/icons/*.png # tar cvfz baz-clean.tar.gz baz/ Source: baz-clean.tar.gz -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review