https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=665733 --- Comment #30 from Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Richard Shaw from comment #28) > Ok, first a couple of non-blockers from a spec review: > > 1. Group tags have not been required for some time. I prefer keeping Group tags. > 2. Fedora 20 is the oldest supported release so the conditional really isn't > needed, but if you're supporting older Fedora installations locally then > let's keep it. The freetype2 f20 conditional _is_ required to be able to support fc20: ... %if 0%{?fedora} > 20 # Incompatibility: # Fedora > 20 has /usr/include/freetype2/ # Fedora <= 20 has /usr/include/freetype2/freetype sed -i -e 's,freetype/,freetype2/,' src/glue/freetype.{h,cpp} %endif ... The package does not build on fc20 without it, because the freetype header location has changed in Fedora. > One blocker from a spec review: > > Recently the use of the %license macro for marking what part of the > documentation is the license became part of the packaging guidelines. Well, I repeatedly pronounced my opinion on this topic in hopefully non-misunderstandable ways, so I am not going to repeat them here, again. > Detailed review: > > There are some mixed licenses found by licensecheck but most of them don't > look like they make it into the library or binaries so can be ignored. Like many other packages, Coin uses the GPLv2 as an umbrella-license. The package as a whole currently is GPLv2'ed, even though it contains files under other licenses. > One I'm unsure of is the bundled boost headers. The readme in the include > directory indicated they're used for the testsuite and don't make it into > the binaries but mentions they could at a future date, however, grepping > through the sources I'm not so sure that hasn't already happened: Coin3 uses some boost-templates (headers) internally, but the installed headers don't carry any deps on the boost-headers nor do the coin libraries carry and reference to the boost-runtime libs. > Alternatively it looks like all of the include uses system include > formatting instead of pointing specifically to the bundled ones so I wonder > if we could add a BuildRequires for boost and rm -rf the bundled headers? Well, it's a double-edged sword, with pros and cons, each. Buying-in upstream boost bug-fixes, vs. upstream boost introducing incompatibilities and breaking the package. Anyway, with current boost, removing the bundled boost headers doesn't seem to cause any immediate malfunction or break down. -- You are receiving this mail because: 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