https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1424890
--- Comment #19 from Per Bothner <p...@bothner.com> --- Updated (same locations): Spec URL: http://per.bothner.com/DomTerm/domterm.spec SRPM URL: http://per.bothner.com/DomTerm/domterm-0.74-1.fc25.src.rpm I'll clean up the Source0 commans and version numbers when when everything else is OK. It probably makes sense until libwebsockets 2.2 is updated and I can test against that. ".desktop files should be installed using ... desktop-file-validate" Fixed, "rpmlint caught an issue anyway, though: the .desktop file contains the line `Exec=domterm`, but there is no `domterm` file under /usr/bin/ -- just ldomterm and qtdomterm." Well, there is be a /usr/bin/domterm installed, using alternates, but I changed the .desktop line to Exec=ldomterm. "The built domterm package contains the directory /usr/lib/.build-id/ -- which looks to me like leftovers from the build. Probably this isn't needed in the binary RPM, right?" I'm somewhat mystified by this. I noticed the /usr/lib/.build-id directory is full of links on Rawhide, but doesn't exist on F25. It seems to be related to this: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureBuildId "fedora-review detects some directories without a known owner." Fixed. "The spec License tag simply says "BSD". Since there are so many variants on the BSD license, I don't think that's specific enough." From what I can tell, "BSD" is correct: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Valid_License_Short_Names https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Good_Licenses "Moreover, fedora-review's license check finds 3 files in /qtdomterm/ which have comments stating that they use the GNU GPL, which I think might mean that all of DomTerm should also use GPL(?)." Only qtdomterm needs to be GPL. This is only an issue with certain "backend" files, and I think it will make sense to rip those out in favor of using ldomterm, for the sake of simplicity. But until then I changed the qtdomterm license to "GPLv2+". "I also suspect that all these files containing copied code might amount to library bundling, which is at least discouraged in Fedora." Do you mean the third-party JavaScript files I use? They're relatively small, and I think trying to package a bunch of JavaScript client files would be a pain. "Right, DomTerm itself doesn't really *need* Java, it's optional for only a couple features. ... If it would only be an issue when trying to use those optional features, and preferably if DomTerm can gracefully handle Java's absence, then I guess you're fine." I think so. And I think it may be preferable to forcing installation of a bunch of Java packages. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
