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: xorg-x11-xcalc - X.org XCalc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204513
------- Additional Comments From pertusus(a)free.fr 2006-10-08 15:24 EST -------
(In reply to comment #7)
I would assume that the appropriate license is here:
ftp://ftp.x.org/pub/X11R7.0/doc/LICENSE
But there is no reference to John H. Bradley, or to
the University of Pennsylvania. No licence seems to fit with
math.c. Said otherwise there are a lot of licences in the file, but
none seems to be selectable for math.c.
R6.9 and R7.0 are in fact the same, but R7.0 has a reorganzied tree.
R6.9
packaged xcalc as part of the larger tarball with the above licenses.
Therefore, I believe it is safe to assume that the above license is accurate and
does not require conferral with upstream. Anyone have comments on this? If
there is no issue, do I patch in the license then? Or do I simply have it as a
source file?
In that case adding a source file, with a full url seems the
best to me. But I disagree that this file closes the issue.
I removed libX11-devel from the BuildRequires list. I tried removing
the
others, but mock builds fail when I do. (Not sure why that would be the case,
but it is.) So I put them back in.
That's weird. It may be worth debugging on its own, but it isn't
a blocker for the package.
name of the package is xcalc, does it still need a corresponding
provides?
The
Provides: xcalc = %{version}
is certainly unneeded, but you can add, if you like,
Provides: xorg-x11-xcalc = %{version}
In my opinion, the licence is still an issue.
--
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.