Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xorg-x11-xcalc - X.org XCalc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204513 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus@xxxxxxx 2006-10-08 15:24 EST ------- (In reply to comment #7) > I would assume that the appropriate license is here: > ftp://ftp.x.org/pub/X11R7.0/doc/LICENSE But there is no reference to John H. Bradley, or to the University of Pennsylvania. No licence seems to fit with math.c. Said otherwise there are a lot of licences in the file, but none seems to be selectable for math.c. > R6.9 and R7.0 are in fact the same, but R7.0 has a reorganzied tree. R6.9 > packaged xcalc as part of the larger tarball with the above licenses. > Therefore, I believe it is safe to assume that the above license is accurate and > does not require conferral with upstream. Anyone have comments on this? If > there is no issue, do I patch in the license then? Or do I simply have it as a > source file? In that case adding a source file, with a full url seems the best to me. But I disagree that this file closes the issue. > I removed libX11-devel from the BuildRequires list. I tried removing the > others, but mock builds fail when I do. (Not sure why that would be the case, > but it is.) So I put them back in. That's weird. It may be worth debugging on its own, but it isn't a blocker for the package. > name of the package is xcalc, does it still need a corresponding provides? The Provides: xcalc = %{version} is certainly unneeded, but you can add, if you like, Provides: xorg-x11-xcalc = %{version} In my opinion, the licence is still an issue. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review