https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151464 Christian Dersch <chrisdersch@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #9 from Christian Dersch <chrisdersch@xxxxxxxxx> --- Approved! I just wanted you to point out these (cosmetic) parts. The package is fine, I mentioned this above and set the review + flag now ;) (In reply to Andrea Musuruane from comment #8) > (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. Fine but not beautiful ;) > > 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. I didn't say this is wrong or not good, I just want to know if/why it is required ;) The most common way is %doc COPYING.txt LIESMICH.txt README.txt doc/authors.txt Then you don't need the additional doc part in %install then. I tested it and it works. The magic of rpmbuild works fine ;) > > > 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+). Thats correct and License tag is ok ;) I just think it is nicer to add a comment on other used licenses to get a better overview. It is a little bit analogous to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios but in this case not a requirement. Greetings, Christian -- 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