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 #7 from Brendan Jones <brendan.jones.it@xxxxxxxxx> 2012-03-07 23:47:39 EST --- (In reply to comment #6) > > 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? Just remove the offending libraries / directories in the %prep section. No need to remove the osx/win stuff as long as you don't build against it, nor include any of the files in your %file section > > 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 need to include all of the upstream license files with a summary. Because the content licenses are different in the data subpackage you can add a separate License tag for this sub-package. You can't include the Debian file as a license as they are not upstream and have no authority here. > > > > > 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? Sure, change blockers/depends as you see fit. > 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? Right, but you would have Patch0: redeclipse-1.2-fix-icon-sizes.patch and in you %prep section: %patch0 -p1 for example. Do this for all of your patches. -- 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