[Bug 617764] Review Request: gphotoframe - Photo Frame Gadget for the GNOME Desktop

[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=617764

--- Comment #4 from Ben Boeckel <mathstuf at gmail.com> 2010-07-24 11:34:55 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Thank you for initial comments.
> 
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > So, just that rpath issue.
> 
> - Well, what do you mean "rpath" here? This is noarch and rpath
>   should not be related.

Oops, yeah. I shouldn't do these so late at night I guess :P . Taking a peek in
the mock chroot, I don't see the "hardcoded" library path in that file since
it's just a shellscript that does "exec gphotoframe". Not sure what that is.

> > [OK] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
> > format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
> > [XX] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
> > license.
> > 
> > Looking at COPYING, it seems there is GPLv2+, MIT, and BSD code included as
> > well. Nothing bad, just might need to be listed.
> 
> - Will change the license tag to "GPLv3+ and GPLv2+" (and adding some
>   comments that some png files are under GPLv2+. I usually don't
>   explicit write about MIT or BSD or so if GPL codes are also included).

OK. The new rules for licensing are also good since gss depends on the base
package, so it's good there as well (need to update my checklist I guess).

> > Other:
> > - How is python3 parallel install? 
> 
> - I guess the upstream will say something when python3 is supported.
>   And I have not tried python3... so for now I want to make this package
>   just support python2.    

OK.

Just need a new spec for the license tag update and it's good.

-- 
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.