https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840707 --- Comment #65 from Michael Scherer <misc@xxxxxxxx> --- @raveit and comment #67, I personally do not think we should care in Fedora about user of non official repo, yes. For example, Fedora do not care about breaking nvidia driver or various third parties repo, and if a 3rd party repository break something in fedora, most people will not accept but about that. So splitting because someone else did it without being able to to say why do not think a good reason alone. @dan and comment #61, yep, I agree that a subpackage seems extreme for just 1 or 2 files. The alternative is to ship everything in 1 package and then, there is 2 cases : - do not requires pkgconfig/aclocal, but then, the directory holding the files may be unowned. And that's usually seen as bad, even if in practice, the consequence are near 0 for some directories, since there is already lots of case like this and no one seems to complain. The only consequence is "directory is not removed on package removal", and maybe various issue if the file permission are not properly tracked. I guess one day, I will open a ticket to FPC to ask to clarify the situation. - requires pkgconfig and aclocal, but this bring bloat and unneeded software. And that's IMHO bad for other reasons. Regarding the license, saying "search by yourself" is not really a good answer. I am more than able to do it, but as written in the packaging policy, this must be added somewhere in the spec as comment. And since lots of file have been removed, the split GPL/LGPL must be checked ( ie, is there still stuff under the GPL ? ). I am also unsure about the fact that's not GPL, but GPL + a exception, see for example tools/mate-doc-tool.in : # As a special exception to the GNU General Public License, if you # distribute this file as part of a program that contains a # configuration script generated by Autoconf, you may include it under # the same distribution terms that you use for the rest of that program. So this should surely be reflected in the license. I think you should also explain to upstream they need to add proper copyright notice in the file they change if they want to do things correctly ( ie, despites having modified everything, I see no "copyright 2012 "the mate devs" in the file I look ). And also, that they should check before doing search and replace ( for example, the comment about : # Modified for mate-doc-utils by Danilo Šegan <danilo@xxxxxxxxx> is wrong, that's the result of search and replace on http://git.gnome.org/browse/gnome-doc-utils/tree/tools/gnome-doc-prepare.in ) While it seems unneeded and annoying bureaucracy, and that's a tedious job, I think everybody want to avoid a 2nd SCO case, and that's why lawyers will insist on this ( proper attribution, etc, etc ) -- 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