https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1157255
--- Comment #29 from Ben Rosser rosser.bjr@gmail.com --- Actually, on further thought, I do not believe it makes sense for ufoai and ufoai-data to be separate source packages. This makes the directory ownership logic simpler-- if all the packages (data and data-server) included can depend on ufoai-common, ufoai-common can own /usr/share/ufoai and /usr/share/ufoai/base.
I'm guessing this separation predated noarch subpackages?
The licensing needs to be checked carefully, and I have not done that (I don't know if the License: tag breakdown that was in the spec is accurate). And a decision needs to be reached on unbundling. So I'm not proposing this for review. But you can grab my revised spec here:
https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/ufoai/ufoai.spec
A patch from Osipov is mirrored here, along with my configure script patch:
https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/ufoai/ufoai-2.5-desktop-files.patch https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/ufoai/ufoai-configure-invalid-option.patch
And a SRPM of ufoai 2.5 is here:
https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/ufoai/ufoai-2.5-3.fc28.src.rpm
If I feel sufficiently motivated to double-check all the licensing and look at the bundling over the next few days, I might even submit a new review request.