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=549821 --- Comment #3 from Mattias Ellert <mattias.ellert@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-03-10 02:41:52 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) Hi! Sorry for the delay. I was waiting for upstream to make a new release I knew was going to be tagged "soon". The tagging happened yesterday, so I have created a new package based on this tag: Spec URL: http://www.grid.tsl.uu.se/review/dcap.spec SRPM URL: http://www.grid.tsl.uu.se/review/dcap-2.44.0-1.fc12.src.rpm > * MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual > license. > NO: > There's a couple of files that look might they may be burrowed from elsewhere. > getopt.c is a BSD one so maybe the main package should also be BSD. > > addler32.c looks to have been borrowed from zlib. The getopt.c file is not used during compilation, so I don't think it should matter. However, there are some files in the plugins/gssapi directory that are under BSD license, which is why I already added a BSD tag to the kerberos and globus tunnel packages. What to do about the main package tag is tricky, since it is used for both the source rpm and the main binary package. The zlib license of the adler32 source was well spotted - I had overlooked that. I have changed the main License tag in the new package to: License: LGPLv2+ and zlib and BSD and added License tags to the sub-packages as appropriate. > General comments: The source is generated with. > > # svn co http://svn.dcache.org/dCache/tags/dcap-1.9.3-7 \ > # dcap-1.2.44 > > How does 1.9.3-7 map to dcap-1.2.44 , maybe a comment to get the > version out of dcap_version.c is needed just to make it > clearer. The new version has svn tag name consistent with the version of the package. -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review