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=800930 --- Comment #6 from Martin Erik Werner <martinerikwerner@xxxxxxxxx> 2012-03-07 18:30:35 EST --- Spec URL: http://arand.fedorapeople.org/2/redeclipse.spec (In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > (...) > > Or are you saying the patches should be separated out and not extracted from > > the debian sources? I figured it was the right thing to do since these are > > patches that won't get applied upstream (I have asked), and since I wrote the > > patches for Debian initially, it is the upstream for these patches, no? > > Correct, just include the unedited source tarball along with the required > patches as diffs (%Patch0, %Patch1 .. etc). Part of the review process is to > checksum the upstream tarball against what is in the SRPM. Also, don't include > any of the debian license files. Upstream tarball has embedded libs without source code (sdl, freetype, ...), hence I take it repacking is required, And I'm taking the opportunity to remove the associated headers for these libs (no need to document a slew of copyrights), along with the osx/win-specific content. Should any of this be left alone instead? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios : "Since this is a multiple licensing scenario, the package must contain a comment explaining the multiple licensing breakdown. The actual implementation of this is left to the maintainer." Since the license breakdown is humongous, I consider using the Debian copyright files are my best bet. > > You also shouldn't be building any bundled libraries (enet for example), you'll > have to remove those sources in your %prep section and ad a BuildRequires: enet > >= 1.3. I've added a blocker on the bug you've raised for this. Yeah, I'm keeping it for the time being though in order to test builds. Hmm, maybe it should be the Enet bug at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739313 ..blocking egoboo and redeclipse individually? > > > > The icon-fix patch is an exception, that one is applied upstream, the header > > should indicate that, should I be including this a a separate Patch# instead? > > (I was pulling it in since it already exists in the debian sources) > > Your patches should be split as you deem appropriate. This is a good candidate > for a separate patch. If upstream fix/apply something in a subsequent release > it is much easier to remove a single %patch, than it is to selectively > edit/recreate a large one. But the only thing that would need removing in my case is the %prep line patch -p1 < debian/patches/backported-fix-icon-sizes.patch ..so it would be really simple to remove it, no? -- 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