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: bogl - a graphics library and an Unicode terminal emulator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214124 ------- Additional Comments From colding@xxxxxxxxx 2006-11-10 04:44 EST ------- (In reply to comment #3) > > Jules, any comments? Sure. I'll jump straight to your comments to my comments. This is, after all, a learning experience for me. > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > In my opinion, the following are okay. > > = /usr/share/bogl > This is correctly owned by bogl-bterm > > = /usr/include/bogl > This is correctly owned by bogl-bterm Hmm.. I was under the false impression that the right way to claim directory ownership was to state the directory with the %dir macro first and later list all files within that directory. > = You are using: "Requires: bogl = %{epoch}:%{version}-%{release}" > This is correct when using epoch. > > = I can't see any resaon why you need to use the epoch tag > For this package, epoch is needed as Epoch was already used > when this package was in Fedora Core. OK, but epoch is generally frowned upon, right? > = source files license issue: > Well, surely some of the source files are not explicitly > licensed, however, for now I trust that these are licensed > under GPL accroding to debian/copyright. OK, but was I correct in bringing the "issue" to light? I remember reading somewhere on gnu.org that each and every file should explicitly state the license terms as well as a copyright notice. > = bogl does not use autoconf/automake > In my opinion, autoconf/automake should not be used unless > it is unavoidable and there is no problem for this package. OK. It is just me beeing overly pedantic here... > = There is a lot of compile warnings > Well, compilation warnings should be avoided as well as > possible, however my opinion is this is not a blocker > as long as the warnings are not _crucial_ . > I maintain xscreensaver, of which the compilation warning canNOT > be avoided because of gtk2 "bug". No, surely not a blocker. Miloslav also states above that he did review all of those warning about a year ago, so they should be harmles. Now of to pre-review some other unfortunate package :-) -- jules -- 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