http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=310
--- Comment #22 from Mikhail Kalenkov <mikhail.kalen...@gmail.com> 2009-06-18 07:40:53 --- (In reply to comment #21) SPEC - http://katrine.lpi.ru/kalenkov/fusion/scid.spec SRPM - http://katrine.lpi.ru/kalenkov/fusion/scid-3.7.3-7.fc11.src.rpm > (In reply to comment #18) > > I wrote two patches scid-makefile-togaII.patch and > > scid-makefile-phalanx.patch. Actually I don't like the way I fix optflags > > issues. Could you recommend a better way? > > > > I think this is the best we could do. You could ask upstream why they are not > honoring the flags defined by OPTIMIZE variable for the compilation of these > files. OK. > > Is it necessary to specify license tag for subpackages? > > > > Actually, this is a good question and something that I missed during the > review. The license tag is inherited from the parent package. You only have to > define the license tag in a subpackage if it is different from the parent's. > > Now, correct me if I'm wrong: In this case, > - the main package is "GPLv2+ and distributable only in Scid" > - sounds and bases packages are "GPLv2+" > - books package is "GPL+ and freely distributable" Done. I found that src/tcl/contrib/ezsmtp/* files have a nonGPL license (tcl/contrib/ezsmtp/license.txt). I wrote in spec file that they are "freely distributable". Is it correct? -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.