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 #9 from Martin Erik Werner <martinerikwerner@xxxxxxxxx> 2012-03-08 10:02:55 EST --- (In reply to comment #7) > (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 Ah, I assumed the srpms was required to be "clean" and "open-source" (in addition to distributable).. Since not, then I agree, no repack needed. > > > > 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. So in effect, you are asking me to disregard the work already done by me in Debian to create a clear license breakdown, and to rewrite this information in a crappy non-standardised format? I'll see if I can commit this info upstream and and pull that commit blob in as a patch instead. That would make the information "authoritative", right? I've switched to using Patch#s and skipped the debug flag patch, instead using CXXFLAGS+=-g in the make invocation. Latest spec URL: http://arand.fedorapeople.org/3/redeclipse.spec -- 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