[Bug 509160] Review Request: mine_detector – a mine-finding game

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=509160

--- Comment #12 from David A. Wheeler <dwheeler at dwheeler.com> 2010-01-26 10:29:56 EST ---
(In reply to comment #11)

>> It's weird that it doesn't touch %{SOURCE3} during %prep or %build. it only shows up in %install...
>It seemed a bit silly to copy the file in two steps when one step worked just
>as well, but if it's more future-proof, then I'll do it that way.

I don't see any guideline requiring it, it just seemed odd.
I'll leave that to your discretion, it's not a requirement.


(In reply to comment #10)
> There was supposed to be a license file. It was included with version 5 but was left out from version 6 by mistake. Jeffrey Carter said it was a mistake and
gave me permission to use the file from version 5... Here's the relevant email
conversation...

Okay, thanks for the clarification.  Licensing is a big deal in Fedora, we want
to make sure that everything is 100% okay legally.

Please *add* the email conversation to the package (as a single file).  Include
the headers for each email.  You already have the emails, so that should be
easy.  I think this is important to do.

You could make an argument that this isn't strictly necessary.  In particular,
the source files already reference the license.  But unlike *normal* patches,
adding a patch that inserts a software license that wasn't there before is
certain to raise concerns.  I think it's important to make it absolutely clear
to any recipient that this is correct.  And at that point, it doesn't matter
how you interpret the guidelines... you've covered all the bases.


Also: Usually files given as Source: have the package name prefixed.
That way, simultaneous builds won't cause trouble.
I think you should do that; be sure to rename them back to their
expected name.

>> WARNING: The URL given here has an UNCHANGING version value:

> Yeah well, Jeffrey's site has jumped around a few times... I can use
the macro if you want me to.

Ah.  Okay, that makes sense.  The guidelines say "Having macros in a Source: or
Patch: line is a matter of style."


>> ISSUE. It does NOT include a man page.  Have you queried upstream?    

> No. There was no written policy on man pages when I last touched this package.... All the instructions you
need are displayed when you press the "Rules" button, and I don't see a point
in duplicating that text in a man page.    

It's not a requirement, merely a "Should".  And I agree, for a simple GUI game
where the rules are already presented, there's no need for a man page.  So
don't worry about that.


So, the most critical thing at this point is to add a file with the email
conversation on licensing, as you've done in this bug report, so that everyone
can see there is absolutely NO problem.  Also, I think you should modify your
files that go into sources so that they're prefixed by the name (so multiple
simultaneous builds have no problem).

-- 
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.