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: clucene - A C++ port of Lucene https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215258 ------- Additional Comments From dakingun@xxxxxxxxx 2006-11-20 14:20 EST ------- > Bad: > - Why does the package the file APACHE.license and COPYING. The Lincennse tag > says the LGPL as the license for the package. A clarification may be nice. I guess I can leave out packaging the APACHE.license file since we've already chosen LGPL, the COPYING file provides the clarification you were asking for. Basically that the software includes both APACHE and LGPL licenses and one can choose any of the 2, but the LGPL is preferred and recommended. > - Try to run ./cl_test in the test directory in the check stanza. I have try > myself and was wondering why cl_test was not generate. Please forward this to > the upsteam. I think it's intentional not to build the test stuff by default (IMHO, neither should we do it for Fedora packaging effort). People who are interested in running the test can grab the source (src rpm) and 'make check' in the test directory. > - Perhaps the devel rpm should contains some documentation for developers. > ok, i've packaged those that comes with the software. Spec URL: ftp://czar.eas.yorku.ca/pub/clucene/clucene.spec SRPM URL: ftp://czar.eas.yorku.ca/pub/clucene/clucene-0.9.15-3.src.rpm -- 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