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 mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2006-11-10 04:54 EST ------- (In reply to comment #7) > > = /usr/share/bogl > > = /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. Your way is polite and recommended, however, not a few people (including Miloslav and me) just write the directory name, which means the directory itself and all the files under the 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? Yes, generally epoch should be avoided, however, *ONCE* it is used it becomes inevitable...... > > = 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. I think this should be left to the discussion with upstream. -- 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