[Bug 176253] Review Request: clement-2.1
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: clement-2.1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=176253
------- Additional Comments From jmp(a)safe.ca 2006-07-06 12:00 EST -------
Version 2.1-175 SPECS file is now clean according rpmlint-0.77-1.fc5
rpmbuild give no warning anymore about "File listed twice"
Spec Url: ftp://ftp.safe.ca/pub/clement-2.1/SPECS/clement-2.1-175.spec
SRPM Url: ftp://ftp.safe.ca/pub/clement-2.1/SRPMS/clement-2.1-175.src.rpm
Numerous bug-fix/improvement have been done since last bugzilla Clement
update (2.1-99), see the Changes file and SPEC Changelog for details.
According to me SPEC file is really better, there 2 issue not yet addressed:
1) /var/lib/clement-2.1 contents.
those file are mainly day to day clement own management, I am really
reluctant to put them in /usr/bin as they are for the sole clement purpose. what
is the best option in such case?
2) ownership for /var/www/clement-2.1:
putting everything own by 'mail' is may be overkilling, this web part is not
meaningful if clement daemon is not up and running, Clement itself run with
uid 'mail', that why I chose to set the ownership as 'mail'.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
17 years, 9 months
[Bug 187294] Review Request: gwyddion
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: gwyddion
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187294
------- Additional Comments From pertusus(a)free.fr 2006-07-06 11:32 EST -------
Using GPL instead of GNU GPL is a matter of convention.
If there is a mix of GPL and public domain code, the resulting subpackage
is covered by the GPL. However if you want to make clear which part
of the subpackage are under which licence, you can add a file explaining
more precisely the licences of the different parts of that subpackage, and
put it in %docs.
If you can isolate the parts that are public domain in a subpackage,
then the licence may be public domain for that subpackage.
Licence issues are not technical issues, but they are as important as
technical issues.
As a side note, you can omit the Licence: tag from subpackages
when it is the same than the licence of the main package.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
17 years, 9 months