https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151464 --- Comment #8 from Andrea Musuruane <musuruan@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Christian Dersch from comment #7) > Detailed review below :) There are two (small) points I want to discuss. One > is the documentation already mentioned by Raphael. Can you explain if the > part below is still required? At least my buildsystem the manual > installation of the doc isn't a requirement and I think no current Fedora > needs it. I don't want to sound harsh but please explain why my method is not good. AFAIK I could even patch CMake source files to include the installation of those doc files and it would be perfectly fine. The Fedora packaging guidelines just state that "Any relevant documentation [..] should be included in the package as %doc": https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Documentation My spec file satisfies this requirement. > The second point: Please add a comment on zlib licensed files in your spec. > The License tag itself is fine. Now the detailed review: Again, I can't find any requirement to list the license of every source file (BTW, why just the zlib licensed ones and not the others?). Fedora guidelines requires to specify the License tag and that is the license of the contents of the *binary* RPM: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines The result binary RPM is GPLv3+ (PD & GPLv2+ & GPLv3+ & zlib = GPLv3+). -- 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