[Bug 578290] Review Request: mj - Mah-Jong program with network option

[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=578290

--- Comment #11 from Klaus Grue <grue at diku.dk> 2010-04-12 05:17:46 EDT ---
Now I have looked at mj-1.10-3.

There are NO remaining actions for the packager (Göran Uddeborg)
as far as I can see.

We wait for one answer from Tom 'spot' Callaway on "moral rights".

I have three questions to Mamoru Tasaka:

Is it ok to include non-GPL tiles in the source package
when the non-GPL tiles are not included in the binary packages?
I suppose I should ask Tom 'spot' Callaway about that, but
how should I do that? By a direct e-mail to him with a copy
on the present page?

The package uses the directory /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps/
which is owned by package hicolor-icon-theme-0.10-6.noarch. How
can I know whether or not one needs to require
hicolor-icon-theme-0.10-6.noarch?

Packaging guidelines says that "Each package must consistently
use macros." Is this a question of using either $RPM_OPT_FLAGS
style or %{optflags} style?

---

Comments on mj-1.10-3

Doing a diff of mj-1.10-2 and mj-1.10-3 one can see that
things like "#FFFFF0" have changed to things like "ivory"
many places in the tiles-kdegames. I assume that is a
consequence of some change in kgegames and should not be
mentioned in the mj changelog.

OK



> > > Why are man pages not user writable?
> > It's an upstreams decision.
> OK. As long as man pages are uninstallable, it must be OK that
> they are not writable.    
PS. I meant "As long as man pages can be uninstalled..."
I have checked installing and erasing the package and the
man pages appear and disappear as they should.

OK



> > ... except lazyfixed.c, lazyfixed.h, vlazyfixed.c, and
> > vlazyfixed.h which refer to
> >   GNU Lesser General Public License (any version).
> > Is that a problem?
> 
> Obviously not for distributability.  Reading the first answer of
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ#How_should_I_handle_multiple_licensing_situations.3F
> I believe that the license tag should only say the stricter license (GPL) in
> this case.  Do you agree?  Or should I ask fedora-legal about this (too)?

I agree. OK.

-- 
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.