[Bug 1176273] Review Request: andy-super-great-park - 2D arcade game

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1176273



--- Comment #29 from MartinKG <mgansser@xxxxxxxx> ---
(In reply to Jeremy Newton from comment #28)
> (In reply to MartinKG from comment #27)
> > (In reply to Jeremy Newton from comment #26)
> > > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
> > >      Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
> > >      found: "Apache (v2.0)", "*No copyright* CC by-sa", "GPL (v2 or
> > >      later)", "*No copyright* CC by-sa (v3.0)", "Unknown or generated".
> > >      1555 files have unknown license.
> > > > License is GPLv3 not GPLv3+. See LICENSE file
> > 
> > done
> > > 
> > > [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
> > > [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
> > >      must be documented in the spec.
> > > > You should really add a breakdown if possible
> > 
> > done
> 
> I think you misunderstood. There are two licenses provided: CCPL (CC by-sa
> v3.0) and GPL.
> 
> According you the readme, all code is GPL v3 (excluding data/common.scm,
> which is actually GPLv2+) and all multimedia is CC by-sa v3.0. You can
> change the breakdown to the following:
> 
> > # All code is GPLv3 except:
> > # asgp/data/common.scm is GPL (v2 or later)
> > # All multimedia (pictures, sounds, levels, etc.) is CC BY-SA V3.0

done

> As well, asgp/android can be deleted in prep as you shouldn't need these
> files for Fedora (thus you should also remove ASL 2.0).
> 

done, delete android and removed ASL 2.0 license


> Also please include the full licenses in the data file %license macro like
> so:
> 
> > %license asgp/LICENSE asgp/license/*

done

> Note the %license macro for the main package is not necessary, since the
> main package requires the data package, but you may include it if you so
> please.
> 
> > > [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
> > >      Note: Directories without known owners:
> > >      /usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64/apps,
> > >      /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps,
> > >      /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps,
> > >      /usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24/apps,
> > >      /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16,
> > >      /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128/apps,
> > >      /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64,
> > >      /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32,
> > >      /usr/share/icons/hicolor, /usr/share/bear-factory
> > > > This can be fixed by adding the following to the main package:
> > > BuildRequires: hicolor-icon-theme
> > > Requires: hicolor-icon-theme
> > > > Which is something I missed when I was reviewing bear. Please fix this.
> > 
> > - add RR hicolor-icon-theme in both packages, I think BR is not required.
> 
> Indeed, the BR is not required, but it should silence the fedora-review
> warning. Adding only the RR is fine by me.
> 
> The license issue is the only thing that needs to be fixed. You don't have
> to upload another srpm if you don't want to, but please post the new spec
> with the suggested changes before I can approve.

all suggestions hopefully changed.

new spec file only:

Spec URL: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/asgp.spec

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]