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=578290 --- Comment #11 from Klaus Grue <grue@xxxxxxx> 2010-04-12 05:17:46 EDT --- Now I have looked at mj-1.10-3. There are NO remaining actions for the packager (Göran Uddeborg) as far as I can see. We wait for one answer from Tom 'spot' Callaway on "moral rights". I have three questions to Mamoru Tasaka: Is it ok to include non-GPL tiles in the source package when the non-GPL tiles are not included in the binary packages? I suppose I should ask Tom 'spot' Callaway about that, but how should I do that? By a direct e-mail to him with a copy on the present page? The package uses the directory /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps/ which is owned by package hicolor-icon-theme-0.10-6.noarch. How can I know whether or not one needs to require hicolor-icon-theme-0.10-6.noarch? Packaging guidelines says that "Each package must consistently use macros." Is this a question of using either $RPM_OPT_FLAGS style or %{optflags} style? --- Comments on mj-1.10-3 Doing a diff of mj-1.10-2 and mj-1.10-3 one can see that things like "#FFFFF0" have changed to things like "ivory" many places in the tiles-kdegames. I assume that is a consequence of some change in kgegames and should not be mentioned in the mj changelog. OK > > > Why are man pages not user writable? > > It's an upstreams decision. > OK. As long as man pages are uninstallable, it must be OK that > they are not writable. PS. I meant "As long as man pages can be uninstalled..." I have checked installing and erasing the package and the man pages appear and disappear as they should. OK > > ... except lazyfixed.c, lazyfixed.h, vlazyfixed.c, and > > vlazyfixed.h which refer to > > GNU Lesser General Public License (any version). > > Is that a problem? > > Obviously not for distributability. Reading the first answer of > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ#How_should_I_handle_multiple_licensing_situations.3F > I believe that the license tag should only say the stricter license (GPL) in > this case. Do you agree? Or should I ask fedora-legal about this (too)? I agree. OK. -- 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