[Bug 800930] Review Request: redeclipse - Multiplayer FPS game based on Cube2

[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=800930

--- Comment #7 from Brendan Jones <brendan.jones.it at gmail.com> 2012-03-07 23:47:39 EST ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> 
> Upstream tarball has embedded libs without source code (sdl, freetype, ...),
> hence I take it repacking is required, And I'm taking the opportunity to remove
> the associated headers for these libs (no need to document a slew of
> copyrights), along with the osx/win-specific content.
> Should any of this be left alone instead?

Just remove the offending libraries / directories in the %prep section. No need
to remove the osx/win stuff as long as you don't build against it, nor include
any of the files in your %file section

> 
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios
> :
> "Since this is a multiple licensing scenario, the package must contain a
> comment explaining the multiple licensing breakdown. The actual implementation
> of this is left to the maintainer."
> 
> Since the license breakdown is humongous, I consider using the Debian copyright
> files are my best bet.

You need to include all of the upstream license files with a summary. Because
the content licenses are different in the data subpackage you can add a
separate License tag for this sub-package. You can't include the Debian file as
a license as they are not upstream and have no authority here.
> 
> > 
> > You also shouldn't be building any bundled libraries (enet for example), you'll
> > have to remove those sources in your %prep section and ad a BuildRequires: enet
> > >= 1.3. I've added a blocker on the bug you've raised for this.
> 
> Yeah, I'm keeping it for the time being though in order to test builds.
> 
> Hmm, maybe it should be the Enet bug at
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739313
> ..blocking egoboo and redeclipse individually?

Sure, change blockers/depends as you see fit.

> But the only thing that would need removing in my case is the %prep line
> patch -p1 < debian/patches/backported-fix-icon-sizes.patch
> ..so it would be really simple to remove it, no?

Right, but you would have Patch0: redeclipse-1.2-fix-icon-sizes.patch

and in you %prep section:

%patch0 -p1

for example. Do this for all of your patches.

-- 
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.