https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151464
Christian Dersch <chrisdersch(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #9 from Christian Dersch <chrisdersch(a)gmail.com> ---
Approved! I just wanted you to point out these (cosmetic) parts. The package is
fine, I mentioned this above and set the review + flag now ;)
(In reply to Andrea Musuruane from comment #8)
(In reply to Christian Dersch from comment #7)
> Detailed review below :) There are two (small) points I want to discuss. One
> is the documentation already mentioned by Raphael. Can you explain if the
> part below is still required? At least my buildsystem the manual
> installation of the doc isn't a requirement and I think no current Fedora
> needs it.
I don't want to sound harsh but please explain why my method is not good.
AFAIK I could even patch CMake source files to include the installation of
those doc files and it would be perfectly fine.
Fine but not beautiful ;)
The Fedora packaging guidelines just state that "Any relevant documentation
[..] should be included in the package as %doc":
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Documentation
My spec file satisfies this requirement.
I didn't say this is wrong or not good, I just want to know if/why it is
required ;) The most common way is
%doc COPYING.txt LIESMICH.txt README.txt doc/authors.txt
Then you don't need the additional doc part in %install then. I tested it and
it works. The magic of rpmbuild works fine ;)
> The second point: Please add a comment on zlib licensed files in your spec.
> The License tag itself is fine. Now the detailed review:
Again, I can't find any requirement to list the license of every source file
(BTW, why just the zlib licensed ones and not the others?).
Fedora guidelines requires to specify the License tag and that is the
license of the contents of the *binary* RPM:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines
The result binary RPM is GPLv3+ (PD & GPLv2+ & GPLv3+ & zlib = GPLv3+).
Thats correct and License tag is ok ;) I just think it is nicer to add a
comment on other used licenses to get a better overview. It is a little bit
analogous to
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Lic...
but in this case not a requirement.
Greetings,
Christian
--
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