On Tuesday 07 March 2006 23:44, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > I'm reviewing a couple of packages that specify Hi Jason, > License: GPL version 2 or later > > which rpmlint complains about. "GPL version 2 or later" is directly > from the package source. > > I suspect that all but a handful of the packages in Core and Extras > say "GPL" when they include GPLv2 and allow any later version. So > should this package just do the same? Or is such specificity allowed? > > It won't be long before we start seeing GPLv3 packages and, as a side > effect, GPLv2only packages. How will these be specified? I have asked the same question yesterday in the packagers mailing list: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2006-March/thread.html I am sorry, I thought that you were on that list as well, or else I would have CC'ed those messages. As discussed in that thread I will apply those changes to the R modules that I have submitted. The consensus was that we shoult stick to GPL and ship the DESCRIPTION file in %doc. I have also updated cran2rpmspec to cope with this rules. http://www.fc.up.pt/pessoas/jamatos/R/cran2rpmspec The old version it is still there: http://www.fc.up.pt/pessoas/jamatos/R/cran2rpmspec-1.0 BTW, thank you for reviewing them. :-) > - J< -- José Abílio -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
