[Bug 216131] Review Request: glest-data - Data files for the game Glest

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: glest-data - Data files for the game Glest
Alias: glest-data

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=216131





------- Additional Comments From gauret at free.fr  2006-11-25 18:44 EST -------
> - Why do you include SOURCE1 (glest-get-translations.sh) but do not install it?

It is the script I used to make the translations tarball (SOURCE2). I included
it for transparency, in case someone wants to know where SOURCE2 comes from and
verify it.

> - Change permissions on SOURCE1 to 755

Done. This is ususally harmless since it's the src.rpm (and the script is not
installed in the build root)

> - Add empty %build with a comment saying nothing to build

I don't think this is a real problem. If rpmbuild accepts the spec file, then
the %build section is optional. If it is optional, it's probably for a reason,
and I think NoArch packages are why.

> - data looks like it is not licensed as GPL.  Please clarify with upstream

Exact, the licence tag is wrong. The data files are "distributable". However,
this complies with the Fedora Guidelines :
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Shareware
Game content is allowed as long as it is distributable.
On top of that, one of glest's main features is that it can be easily modified
because the data files are XML. So I'm pretty sure you're allowed to modify it.

I've already contacted upstream to ask them to clarify if the content may be
modified. I'm still waiting for the reply, and I'll update the licence tag when
I get it.

> - add punctuation to description

Done.

New release : http://gauret.free.fr/fichiers/rpms/fedora/glest-data-2.0.0-2.src.rpm
(give it a few minutes to upload)

Thanks for the review

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.