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=691195 --- Comment #3 from Mario BlÃttermann <mariobl@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-03-27 13:11:30 EDT --- Thanks for your hints. The new files: Spec URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/19373040/Fedora/SPECS/wmnet.spec SRPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/19373040/Fedora/wmnet-1.06-2.fc14.src.rpm Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2950831 (In reply to comment #2) > - The upstream location seems to be http://www.katharineosborne.com/wmnet. > They also provide the latest version even if it's not listed on the website: > http://www.katharineosborne.com/wmnet/wmnet-1.06.tar.gz > I'm in doubt if this is a real project homepage. However, I've added it to the spec for the time being. > - Since there's no hint about the GPL version in the sources, the license tag > would be GPL. However, wmnet relies on getopt (LGPLv2+) linked to > the binary. Thus, the GPL license of wmnet must be at least version 2. > You should get a confirmation from upstream (if still reachable) about that. The contact links are dead, I don't expect to find a responsible developer anywhere. As I already wrote, we should use GPLv2 here, due to the age of the sources. Or should we keep GPL in general, without versioning? The other things you've mentioned are changed now, and the debug package is OK, no issues from rpmlint anymore. -- 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