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=526055 --- Comment #2 from Guido Grazioli <guido.grazioli@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-09-29 08:17:59 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) > Few notes about the package: > - Name package just "alure". Prefixing library packages with lib is debian > scheme, we try to name package closer to upstream name. > This: > > %setup -q -n alure-%{version} > could then be changed simply to (default for -n is %{name}-%{version}: > > %setup -q > OK > - About license, if they does not name LGPL version anywhere, that means any > version of LGPL and license tag should contain LGPLv2+. > They also do carry some GPL'ed script in docs. If it ends up in package, this > adds GPL+ to tag. Right, i found this one from author: http://www.nabble.com/ALURE-1.0-Debian-packages-td23972602.html confirming it's LGPLv2+. Some files under doc are part of NaturalDocs, which is under GPLv2+. So License is LGPLv2+ and GPLv2+ Thanks for looking at this, updated file here: Spec URL: http://guidograzioli.fedorapeople.org/packages/alure/alure.spec SRPM URL: http://guidograzioli.fedorapeople.org/packages/alure/alure-1.0-3.fc11.src.rpm -- 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