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=694287 --- Comment #20 from Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-04-14 23:08:43 EDT --- (In reply to comment #19) > (In reply to comment #17) > > 2 issues: > > > > * The tarball contains a lot of bundled libraries (cf, Externals/). > > cf? Compare for the contents of the directory called Externals/ inside of the tarball. It contains zlib, Cg,, libxml, lib3ds and other libraries. A more detailed look into the package tells that openCOLLADA currently only uses MathMLSolver/ and UTF/. => Make sure the other directories are not being used when building for Fedora. Brute-force way to do so would be to remove them in %prep (This is what a recent change to the FPG recommends). > > This is problematic twice: > > - In general, the Fedora package should not not use them. > > > > - These packages' licenses need to be checked for whether they are properly > > licensed and whether these package's licenses are compatible to openCOLLADA's > > license. > > > > From a coarse glance into tarball, I'd suspect Externals/MathMLSolver not to be > > properly licensed (I can't find any licence). Googling however directed me to > > http://mathmlsolver.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/mathmlsolver/trunk, but I > > haven't checked details, yet. > > Drilled down to the actual SF page at it says it is MIT licensed. Yes. I meanwhile also found some copyright notices in Externals/MathMLSolver's headers and found openCOLLADA/Externals/MathMLSolver to be a hacked up version of the code on sourceforge. I don't know why openCOLLADA is doing so - Could be they are "just hacking" and don't care about proper integration/packaging, could be the sourceforge project is dead. AFAICT, googling indicates openCOLLADA is the only user of MathMLSolver while the sourceforge project might be dead. > How do we handle that? The formal way would be to ask upstream to add the license file. > I ran into this problem on RPMFusion and the decision was to put > comments above the License: tag explaining which parts had what license. Yes, this is one option to handle such cases. > > * The package naming seems inconsistent to me: > > libOpenCOLLADA vs. OpenCOLLADA-devel > > > > The FPG would recommend using the tarball name, which would mean to name the > > packages openCOLLADA and openCOLLADA-devel > > The current naming was how the Suse maintainer set it up and I'm sure their > rules differ in many areas. For the purpose of the Fedora package I'll change > the name. If you want to add "SUSE compatibility" you can add corresponding "Provides: ...". -- 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