https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321081 Richard Shaw <hobbes1069@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(hobbes1069@gmail. | |com) | --- Comment #4 from Richard Shaw <hobbes1069@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Mattia Verga from comment #3) > Issues: > ======= > - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that > are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. > Note: These BR are not needed: gcc-c++ > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 Yeah, I followed the same link and it's useless, you have to scroll up to Build Requirements which states that the standard build root can change over time and you can only assume that there's enough there for rpm/rpmbuild to function. It doesn't hurt anything. > - License in spec file is "GPLv3+ and MIT", but some sources are licensed > GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+, so the license should be "GPLv2+ and MIT". > Also the COPYING file distributed with the program is GPLv2. > The dual license should be explained briefly or with a breakdown. GPLv3 sources can't be downgraded to GPLv2 so I believe my original entry is correct. > - Please add a note to clarify that Source99 is a file added by you > (and specify its license - I think you want to release as MIT) I haven't worried about this in the past as the appdata file itself specifies it's license to be CC0-1.0 (same as the example in the Fedora wiki. -- 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
