https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818401 --- Comment #42 from pcpa <paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andrade@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to comment #41) Thanks for the review. I will upload a newer srpm tonight, but may need some extra feedback also :-) [...] > Issues: > [!]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. > Can you please ellaborate on AtlasUI and libCollada? At least in > collada case: > http://collada.org/mediawiki/index.php/FCollada > it seems to me that is should be packed separately. But I maybe wrong. libAtlasUI.so is 0ad specific for the map editor, e.g. "0ad -editor". libCollada.so is from the 0ad "fork" of fcollada. From what I understand, the last opensource version is from 2008, and all links at http://collada.org/mediawiki/index.php/FCollada lead to http://www.fortem.com/ The closest to a common open source collada I know of is https://github.com/fcolladaCE/fcolladaCE, following the information at http://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/562, but the debian 0ad package also uses the bundled one in 0ad sources. > [!]: MUST If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown > must be documented in the spec. > Please document which part is license under what license. You may very > probably copy it from Debian license file. Or maybe just point to > LICENSE.txt, but there are those annonying "Various" I made a breakdown in #c5, but I am not an specialist :-), it may be desirable a third opinion, maybe ask FE-LEGAL again. The spec states: License: GPLv2+ and BSD and MIT and IBM > [!]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a > separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to > include it. > Please ask upstream to include BSD, MIT and IBM license. I can open a trac asking for clarification on this. Possibly asking to use the debian copyright file? The debian copyright file already have a very detailed description for every file and special cases. LICENSE.txt states: """ Some files don't yet have licensing details specified - if you care about any in particular, let us know and we can try to clarify it. """ that should refer to the "various". > [!]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed > files. > You may use install -p to achive this. I will correct it, in a quick view it is not preserving 2 time stamps, of a png file and from the manual page I wrote. The others should not matter as they are generated during package build. -- 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