[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 pertusus at free.fr  2006-10-08 15:24 EST -------
(In reply to comment #7)
> I would assume that the appropriate license is here:
> ftp://ftp.x.org/pub/X11R7.0/doc/LICENSE

But there is no reference to John H. Bradley, or to 
the University of Pennsylvania. No licence seems to fit with
math.c. Said otherwise there are a lot of licences in the file, but
none seems to be selectable for math.c.


> 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?

In that case adding a source file, with a full url seems the 
best to me. But I disagree that this file closes the issue.


> 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.

That's weird. It may be worth debugging on its own, but it isn't
a blocker for the package.
 

> name of the package is xcalc, does it still need a corresponding provides?

The 
Provides: xcalc = %{version}
is certainly unneeded, but you can add, if you like,
Provides: xorg-x11-xcalc = %{version}

In my opinion, the licence is still an issue.

-- 
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.