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@phys.ntnu.no 2008-04-29 13:33 EST -------
- 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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.