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=616193 --- Comment #6 from Christoph Wickert <cwickert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-07-29 04:47:21 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) > Can you be more specific? Which library/binary, and where are the statements of > BSD license? Sorry, it's actually MIT, to be precise https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/MIT#Modern_Style_with_sublicense * in asn1 everything is BSD * in channels/cliprdr everything is MIT * in channels/common everything it MIT except chan_stream.{c,h} (GPLv2+) * in channels/rdpdr everything is GPLv2+, except rdpdr_main.c (MIT) * in channels/rdpsnd we have rdpsnd.h/rdpsnd_dsp.h (MIT) and rspsnd_alsa.c/rdpsnd_main.c (GPLv2+) * in include/freerdp everything is MIT except kbd.h and rdpset.h (GPLv2+) * in libfreerdp everything is GPLv2+ except frdp.h (MIT) * libfreerdpchanman is MIT * in libfreerdpkbd everything is GPLv2+ * in X11 everything is MIT I think that xfreedrp is MIT, so if there is a separate package for xfreerdp, it should have MIT as license tag. The rest is a mess, but I think it will come down to GPLv2+. The plugins are compiling against the things from common, right? > I would expect "foo-devel" to contain the headers etc for libraries in "foo". > The devel stuff for "foo-common" should be in "foo-common-devel"? Now I see what you mean, but usually we only have one foo-devel package. > > I'm getting rpaths when I build this locally, this doesn't happen in koji or > > mock tough. > > You don't know why? I'm sorry, I don't know. But I'm having the same problem with other packages too. > > The guidelines mention to preserve timestamps. Things like the keyboard > > defintions that are not getting compiled should IMHO have the upstream > > timestamp. > > Yes, "consider" preserving timestamps. Something less vague could be nice. Now > it is up to my preference to focus on simple spec and legibility or on > preserving timestamps - that is bad for consistency ... So how about using -p in general, then it's consistent again? ;) I wouldn't consider this a blocker during the review. Do as you like. -- 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