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: e16-docs - Dcumentation for Enlightenment, DR16
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=254057
------- Additional Comments From terjeros(a)phys.ntnu.no 2008-04-29 13:33 EST -------
1. As with all the e16 packages, you might ping upstream to
relicence
to a more friendly license. Has there been any response so far?
I talked to Kim, which maintains e16 now, was not directly against it, however
there a lot of contributions to the now very old source code. Reaching
consensus with everyone seems a bit off for such a old project.
However it would make sense to change the license in - yet to be released -
e17. It seems already to be changed to something like pure MIT:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legal-list/2008-April/msg00020.html
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=441965
http://enlightenment.org/viewvc/e17/apps/e/COPYING?revision=1.3
http://enlightenment.org/viewvc/e17/apps/e/COPYING-PLAIN?revision=1.1
2. rpmlint says:
e16-docs.noarch: W: invalid-license MIT with advertising
e16-docs.src: W: invalid-license MIT with advertising
It's should be fine, ref. e16 and e16-themes was ok with this.
3. Is the only reason this package Requires e16 for the
/usr/share/e16 directory?
If so, perhaps move it to a /usr/share/e16-docs/ dir and remove the Requires?
The real reason is that docs don't make much sense without e16 and that
document viewer for e16 help files is in e16.
4. This package ships with 2 fonts, can you just Require
a needed font package for those? Or are those specific fonts needed?
/usr/share/e16/E-docs/Vera.ttf
/usr/share/e16/E-docs/VeraBd.ttf
They are available in bitstream-vera-fonts, will fix this.
--
Configure bugmail:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.