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=621416 --- Comment #11 from Martin Gieseking <martin.giesek...@uos.de> 2010-08-14 07:29:56 EDT --- (In reply to comment #10) > Shall I wait for upstream's revised license file or much rather create a > subpackage, since there are two different licenses? It's not necessary to wait for the updated license file. Just add a comment to the spec file that the license has been changed, and append the URL given by Bill in comment #4. You can drop it again once a new upstream release provides the current license text. There's also no need to split the data files into a subpackage. > What is EPSG's license actually called? I don't now. If something like "EPSG" was listed on [1], I would change the License tag to "MIT and EPSG". But since there's nothing like that, you can probably leave the tag as is. Maybe spot or some other legal expert can shed some light on this. [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Software_License_List > There are a couple of "libtool: install: warning: `../libgeotiff.la' has not > been installed in `/usr/lib64'". Should I worry about them? No, you can ignore them. > SRPM URL: http://geofrogger.net/review/libgeotiff-1.3.0-3.fc12.src.rpm The URL doesn't work (404). :) Finally, you should remove the compiler option -O3 added to CFLAGS. Fedora's %{optflags} already include -O2. This can be done with "sed -i 's/ -O3 / /' configure" for example. -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
