https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1024168 --- Comment #3 from Mamoru TASAKA <mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Thank you for comments: http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/rubygem-opengl/rubygem-opengl-0.8.0-2.fc.src.rpm http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/rubygem-opengl/rubygem-opengl.spec * Wed Oct 30 2013 Mamoru TASAKA <mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 0.8.0-2 - Misc fixes with review (bug 1024168) (In reply to Ken Dreyer from comment #2) > Package Review > - The comment "# example/NeHe: KILLED (license unclear)" should read > "examples/NeHe" with an "s". - Modified. > - examples/misc/OGLBench.rb and examples/misc/trislam.rb are licensed "GPL+ > or > Artistic". I think the -doc subpackage License should be "MIT and BSD and > (GPL+ or Artistic)". - Personally I won't want to write "Artistic" because Artistic is non-free and with "GPL+ or Artistic", the valid license on Fedora is only GPL+. Anyway modified. - We would also need to include a copy of the GPL+ > license > in the RPM. Eg. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-1.0.txt - Included. > - Do we need to ship Manifest.txt? I'm thinking we could exclude it, > particularly from the main RPM. - Removed. > - It's not immediately obvious why we need to use create-clean-opengl-gem.sh > to > regenerate the gem. Would you mind adding a sentence to the top of this > script? "We need to regenerate the gem in order to remove files with > unclear > licenses." or something like that. - Some comments added on both the spec and the script. > - Please add %{_isa} to the -doc package requirements. > Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} - This must not be done because -doc subpackage is noarch (%_isa adds arch-dependent dependency) > - Please remove the trailing whitespace after Requires: ruby(rubygems) - Removed. -- 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