https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1178911 --- Comment #6 from Mamoru TASAKA <mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Thank you for initial comments!! First I write some reply to your comments > I am not sure here, I suppose the existing orhpaned package will get un-retired (https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/cairo-dock/) Yes. > You mentioned there were some concerns in the past but now it was ACK'd by spot. It would be best if it there was a public record of that, couldn't find anything on fedora-legal/fedora-devel MLs. Well, there is no public record. All spot and my exchange was in private. I am not sure if I can make these show in public (as this is very legal issue), so for now I put them in private (but I can write the summary of the mail, will add) > IIUIC, the patent stuff is being removed prior to creating the resulting source tarball thanks cairo-dock-create-fedora-tarball.sh. Yes. > Hence I think the license should be: GPLv3+ and BSD GPLv3+ is "more strict" than BSD (and BSD is compatible with GPL) so it is okay to write "GPLv3+" only: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ?rd=Licensing/FAQ#What_is_.22effective_license.22_and_do_I_need_to_know_that_for_the_License:_tag.3F > This doesn't seem to be true, e.g., one may install cairo-dock-libs and miss the licenses/* files. Yes, this must need fixing. Will fix in the next push > Perhaps %cmake macro is robust enough so thar -O3 -> -O2 in CMakeLists.txt is not necessary? Well, for gcc compiler flags related to optimization level, the latter always wins (i.e. gcc -O2 -O3 is gcc -O3). So it is safer to change -O3 in source code to -O2 explicitly. > For %changelog dates rpmlint - Well, I don't rememeber what date is correct any longer... So although it is true that date is wrong in some way, I don't want to fix them. > Personally, I don't have experience with such a setup (used mockchain locally) so hopefully it is acceptable and optimal. Well, for this build bootstrap is not difficult. Just building in the order of cairo-dock -> cairo-dock-plug-ins (srpm) is okay. Other comments seems okay. I will fix - license files placement (should be moved to -libs) - write some brief explanation about legal issue. -- 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