https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2921
--- Comment #22 from Richard <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com> 2013-09-17 20:30:30 CEST ---
Ok, I think we're almost there.
I have some additional updates on my end but I want to make sure I give you
feedback on your last spec file.
1. We need to clarify the license. The provided file says GPLv3 but when I run
licensecheck on the sources most it can't identify and the the ones it can seem
predominantly BSD.
Looking at it, it looks like most of the openmw sources are *UNKNOWN* so I
guess they're covered by the GPL3.txt file in the source root. Oics is BSD so
we'll probably need to add that and a couple of files in the Bullet dir are
Zlib.
I'm not a licensing expert but I think we need to change the tag to:
License: GPLv3 and MIT and zlib
2. There are two fonts included in the package and I'm not clear on the
guidelines for bundled fonts. In looking at every package that bundles fonts,
none of them add the OFL licence reference to the package license tag, so I'm
going to say that we don't need to either.
3. I've corrected it in my spec, but any time you have a macro in a comment or
in the changelog (anywhere you don't expect it to be evaluated) you need to
prefix it with an additional %. Otherwise all the comments in your spec file
will be evaluated by rpmbuild, which is not what we want.
4. I tweaked the data directory reference in %files. Rpmbuild does not require
the trailing slash "/" but it's nice to include it so other people looking
at
your spec will know you intend to grab the whole directory and not just a file.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/34775202/openmw.spec
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/34775202/openmw.spec.diff
--
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.