Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=707819 --- Comment #3 from Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-06-01 15:56:02 EDT --- Thanks for the review, Richard. (In reply to comment #1) > DSDP.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/libdsdp.so.5.8 0775L > 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 10 warnings. > > I'm thinking we should fix the error. Maybe change the "cp -p" to "install -p > -m 0755..." Interesting. I don't get that when building on a real F15 machine (i.e., not mock). I wonder what the difference is. Anyhow, I've gone with your suggested change. > I'm not sure what we should do about the last warning... > --- > $ rpmlint -I shared-lib-calls-exit Complain bitterly to upstream. Seriously. I can't do anything about this without changing the library's API. This is a bad thing for a library to do, but repairing it is upstream's job. (In reply to comment #2) > I can't find anywhere where the license type is specified. The license file > just says it's ok to use/distribute as long as the license file is included. I > didn't find any evidence of a MIT license in the source files either using > grep. > > Perhaps it would be better to use: > "Freely redistributable without restriction" per the guidelines[1]? It is not identified specifically as MIT, no. I just compared the terms in dsdp-license to the various MIT variants listed here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/MIT This license appears to me to be substantially similar. Still, we should proceed with caution. I'll ask about this license on fedora-legal-list. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review