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 #17 from Brendan Jones <brendan.jones.it@xxxxxxxxx> 2012-03-11 11:48:03 EDT --- (In reply to comment #13) > (In reply to comment #12) > > You need a %doc entry in the %files section of the main package. Read this: > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Subpackage_Licensing > > If this is enough, I'd be happy to remove the all-licenses file, however, I get > the impression that (paraphrasing license.txt) > "There are a whole bunch of individual licenses (some custom-written), dig > through the subfolders in order to find them" > ..is not really good enough, or is it? > > Note that there are a few home-made licenses there as well, my comments in the > spec file only cover those which have a known shortname in Fedora. > Its really your call, if some of the maps/content etc are packaged under differing licenses from the main package you should consider sub-packaging those files if feasible and they can be contained. It could also set a precedent for future maps You should also uncomment the requires and remove the bundled enet. Write your spec as if the enet you require is available (looks like someone will be looking at this soon). if you have already an enet spec patch please attach it to the blocker if you haven't already -- 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