http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=588
--- Comment #5 from Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info> 2009-05-13 21:39:38
---
(In reply to comment #4)
- s/remixes/remix/ seems to make sense to me because of
"spin" not "spins"
done
put a small placeholder on
http://rpmfusion.org/remix-kickstarts ; that should
do for now
- You are aware about, that the licensing is not just done by putting
a
licensing file somewhere? At source code, the code itself e.g. needs to
mention the licensing or another file such as readme has to clarify the
overall licensing - as far as I got told by spot. Given that this here is
only a bunch of configuration files, I'm seeing it relaxed, just as note.
I don't care much as it's likely debatable if the files are license-able at
all, but I thought it would be best to follow the example that spin-kickstarts
gave
- "License: GPLv2+" vs. shipping GPLv3 is legally okay, but
is it intended?
hehe, got that from spin-kickstarts as well. They will likely switch to a
proper GPLv3 scheme; switched fully to GPLv3 here now
- Files are put into %{_datadir}/%{name} currently, I assume you
already
have checked, whether there's maybe a common directory which not including
the package name? Or was it intended to use %{name} rather something else?
spin-kickstarts puts them in %{_datadir}/%{name}, so it seemed the best
solution to do the same; IOW: there is no common directory afaics
- You might want to explain in a comment how the versioning works as
you do
not ship a tarball, just a few words (looks like you now depend on spin-
kickstarts versioning?)
Added a small note to the spec file
New package:
http://www.leemhuis.info/files/fedora/rpmfusion-remixes-kickstarts.spec
http://www.leemhuis.info/files/fedora/rpmfusion-remix-kickstarts-0.11.1-2...
--
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.