https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1157255 --- Comment #29 from Ben Rosser <rosser.bjr@xxxxxxxxx> --- Actually, on further thought, I do not believe it makes sense for ufoai and ufoai-data to be separate source packages. This makes the directory ownership logic simpler-- if all the packages (data and data-server) included can depend on ufoai-common, ufoai-common can own /usr/share/ufoai and /usr/share/ufoai/base. I'm guessing this separation predated noarch subpackages? The licensing needs to be checked carefully, and I have not done that (I don't know if the License: tag breakdown that was in the spec is accurate). And a decision needs to be reached on unbundling. So I'm not proposing this for review. But you can grab my revised spec here: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/ufoai/ufoai.spec A patch from Osipov is mirrored here, along with my configure script patch: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/ufoai/ufoai-2.5-desktop-files.patch https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/ufoai/ufoai-configure-invalid-option.patch And a SRPM of ufoai 2.5 is here: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/ufoai/ufoai-2.5-3.fc28.src.rpm If I feel sufficiently motivated to double-check all the licensing and look at the bundling over the next few days, I might even submit a new review request. -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/message/KM2K6AFM7LGU2PLLQGYFV5BSHZUV5QWH/
