https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2161
--- Comment #9 from Jeremy Newton <[email protected]> 2012-01-31 01:14:01 CET --- (In reply to comment #6) > > > If you look into > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Using_Revision_Control > there's an example. I would just add something like > # zip --exclude \*.svn -r %{source} pcsxr Fair enough, I'll include the command. > By whom? Packaging people? Upstream? From packaging point of view I think > patching is a perfectly sane thing to do, besides COPYING. But this is anyway > a minor issue; it's just a little easier to handle rpmlint w/o 33 errors :) Actually by a Fedora Sponsor, I was told to try to get it fixed upstream and if it didn't take, resort to patches in the RPM. > It's the AboutDlg key, containing the complete license, with wrong address > (ZIP). Okay, I'll include this in another bug report upstream. I was a little confused when I couldn't see it digging through the *.po files ;) > No apologies, were just trying to make a job together. Deal? Course :) > Licenses: there's also the option to ship conflicting licenses using > sub-packages Well as I said, worst case scenario, I'll have to dig through the source to figure out what needs what and act accordingly. Best case scenario is isolating all the messy licenses in separated packages of course. Plugins would be the easiest to split up. (In reply to comment #8) > Licenses: Since the bulk of the code is GPLv2+, you don't need a upstream > permission to distribute the complete package under GPLv3, I guess. But the > question is if the other licenses are GPL3-compatible... Yep, I'll take a look when I get a chance; it's a bit of a tedious job and I haven't had a lot of time to do it. -- Configure bugmail: https://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.
