https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1235305
--- Comment #8 from Jeff Backus jeff.backus@gmail.com --- Hi Sören,
Nice job on the review. A couple of notes:
(In reply to Sören Möller from comment #4)
- Thank you for the license clarification, I think I agree that all of the
files are under licenses that are fine for Fedora. I am just in doubt, what should be written in the License-field of the spec file. I think "BSD" (which is the short name for both BSD (2 clause) and BSD (3 clause) is correct, but hope the "real" reviewer will be more certain.
My understanding is that the 2-clause and 3-clause forms are considered interchangeable. Regardless, both have the same shorthand in the license table, so the answer is "BSD".
- I am unsure about the best name for the manpage. I interprete
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Manpages as if it should be called "hitch-openssl", but I am far from sure.
My reading of the guidelines is that manpages should match the names of the executables, i.e. hitch.
- I am unsure how to chekck if "%build honors applicable compiler flags or
justifies otherwise.", although I think it does as it does what I expected in build.log and no obvious changes in the spec-file
I compare the contents of build.log with the appropriate optflags line in /usr/lib/rpm/rpmrc.
Regards, Jeff