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=674180 --- Comment #3 from Julian Aloofi <julian.fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2011-02-07 07:50:22 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) > Here are some initial comments/questions before the review. Thanks for reviewing it! > - I think the homepage in your spec file is wrong. It seems that there was a > rewrite of Knights and your sources are provided by > http://opendesktop.org/content/show.php?content=122046 kde-apps.org is a service run by opendesktop.org, so this is basically the same page as far as I understand. > - You might want to consider to use macros like %{name} in the Source0 tag, > too. This will save you some work later on! Good suggestion. > - The headers of the source files state: > "GNU General Public License [...]; either version 2 of > the License or (at your option) version 3 or any later version > accepted by the membership of KDE e.V." > so GPLv3+ is somehow an oversimplification, isn't it? Probably yes. I'll try and find other applications with these licensing terms in Fedora and see what they did, if I can't find any I'll send a mail to Fedora legal. > - Concerning Licensing: The source file contains no file containing the license > text (e.g. COPYING), it is best to ask upstream to change this. > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text I'll tell upstream about it, missed that :) > - Why are you not using make %{?_smp_mflags} ? Did I miss something? Oh, they should be there of course. I'll add them. -- 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