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=620039 --- Comment #4 from Chen Lei <supercyper1@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-08-03 08:42:56 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) > > The license for this package is complicated, see image_LICENSE.txt, BSD and > > LGPLv3 and Public Domain is not enough(e.g. images from cristalproject is > > licensed under LGPLv2+). > I've seen that. But AFAIK, LGPLv2+ + LGPLv3 kind of equals LGPLv3. But by all > means please correct me if I am wrong If LGPLv2+ and LGPLv3 source files are compiled into one binary, then the license for this binary should be LGPLv3. If those files are not compiled into one file, then they are still licensed under their original license. > > Doing tests in %check will pull in a lot of other ETS packages, normally I'd > > like to do it on a local machine which is already installed the whole ETS > > stacks. For no core python packages, I think doing tests is not a good idea, > > because most Requires are not listed in BuildRequires. > But you can add them as BR, as needed. AFAIK running the embedded tests is > encouraged for all software ( unless it is prohibitive or cannot be done in > koji) Right, it'll be better to do %check in spec if it's convenient to do so. This package will pull in >200M addtional deps for tests, I don't think it's really worth to do so. For C/C++ packages, doing tests normally won't pull in many additional buildrequires. However, for some python packages, I think doing tests is impossible under some circumstance(e.g. Zope2 requires donzes of tiny python modules, all those modules depends on a large amount of other modules, obviously we can't do tests for all those modules). -- 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