[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 #9 from Martin Erik Werner <martinerikwerner at gmail.com> 2012-03-08 10:02:55 EST ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> (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

Ah, I assumed the srpms was required to be "clean" and "open-source" (in
addition to distributable)..
Since not, then I agree, no repack needed.

> > 
> > 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.

So in effect, you are asking me to disregard the work already done by me in
Debian to create a clear license breakdown, and to rewrite this information in
a crappy non-standardised format?

I'll see if I can commit this info upstream and and pull that commit blob in as
a patch instead. That would make the information "authoritative", right?


I've switched to using Patch#s and skipped the debug flag patch, instead using
CXXFLAGS+=-g in the make invocation.

Latest spec URL: http://arand.fedorapeople.org/3/redeclipse.spec

-- 
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.