https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069257 --- Comment #13 from Michael Schwendt <bugs.michael@xxxxxxx> --- > I'm not sure why upstream includes both license files, > but the headers reference both, too. Asking upstream for clarification would be an idea (since LGPL is less restrictive than GPL): https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Clarification > MPFR and GMP are not necessary but provide extra features, so I'm not > sure if I should include them as requirement? As a rule of thumb for -devel package "Requires" one could say: (1) If *any* of the headers within fparser-devel include headers from a different -devel package, that one ought to be added as a "Requires". The rationale would simply be that compiling with fparser-devel should never fail because of missing headers. (2) If headers/files from a different -devel package are fully optional, the app that uses the fparser API and those other -devel packages should add those -devel packages as Requires instead. That way the API users really need to depend on what they use actually instead of you trying to guess what they may want (or not). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review