On Mon, 2012-05-28 at 16:00 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 11:25:43PM +0200, Martin Erik Werner wrote:
> > On Mon, 2012-05-28 at 19:31 +0200, Martin Erik Werner wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > > I have a couple of packaging questions for
On Mon, 2012-05-28 at 19:31 +0200, Martin Erik Werner wrote:
> Hello,
> I have a couple of packaging questions for a new package, the FPS game
> redeclipse[0], which are currently in testing[1].
>
> 1.
> I have three resulting binary packages {redeclipse, redeclipse-server,
the f17 update? Should
I abort it and push a new one (and go through the review process?), or
should I let it go and fix this in a subsequent update; how critical are
unowned dirs like this?
Thanks.
--
Martin Erik Werner
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
--
dev
m/show_bug.cgi?id=800930
[3]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739313
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=799778
--
Martin Erik Werner
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
erdo a scratch build with prohibited code/items.
> >
> > And what about for pre-built binary files contained in source that are not
> > installed in the final rpm (ex. deleted in the %setup stage)? Should the
> > source be purged from those?
>
> If the licensing is such that they can't be redistributed, yes.
>
> -J
So for something that is, say CC-BY-NonCommercial, it would be okay to
ship in the SRPM but not in the RPM?
--
Martin Erik Werner
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
forge.net/apps/mantisbt/egoboo/view.php?id=74
Thanks.
--
Martin Erik Werner
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
