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 #10 from Brendan Jones <brendan.jones.it@xxxxxxxxx> 2012-03-08 10:23:28 EST --- (In reply to comment #9) > > > > 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? Here's the guidelines regarding the situation and your options. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios Apologies, I stand corrected, you can include a file in the %doc section which outlines the breakdown, but you don't need to pull in a debian tarball. Just copy the breakdown into a new file, removing debian references, and include it as a Source and move it into %doc in our install section. > > 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. You should be using CXXFLAGS=%{optflags} http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags IF this still results in the use of non standard compiler flags, you may need to sed/patch the makefile in you %prep section. > > 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