https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321081 --- Comment #5 from Mattia Verga <mattia.verga@xxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Richard Shaw from comment #4) > (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. Yep, it may be a fedora-review glitch, I cannot finda anything in Guidelines about that. Instead I found a page that says the opposite: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B > > - 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. You may be right, but the license file bundled in sources is a GPLv2+ license... I've asked help on the legal mailing list on how to proceed if the bundled license file is wrong. > > - 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. We should document where the sources come from, it should be a best practice to add a comment about that. But it's not mandatory. Let's wait the legal mailing list response about the license. -- 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
