[Bug 204513] Review Request: xorg-x11-xcalc - X.org XCalc

[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 report.

Summary: Review Request: xorg-x11-xcalc - X.org XCalc


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204513





------- Additional Comments From amlai at columbia.edu  2006-10-08 10:41 EST -------
I would assume that the appropriate license is here:
ftp://ftp.x.org/pub/X11R7.0/doc/LICENSE

The X11R6.9.0 license is here:
ftp://ftp.x.org/pub/X11R6.9.0/doc/LICENSE

As stated here:
ftp://ftp.x.org/pub/X11R6.9.0/doc/README
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?

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.

I removed x11_app_defaults_dir for simplicity and am now using globbing for the
man pages.

Due to popular demand, the package name has been renamed to xcalc.  Now that the
name of the package is xcalc, does it still need a corresponding provides?

Spec URL: http://www.columbia.edu/~amlai/xcalc/xcalc.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.columbia.edu/~amlai/xcalc/xcalc-1.0.1-3.fc5.i386.rpm

-- 
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.