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 #4 from Richard Shaw <hobbes1069@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-06-01 16:19:11 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) > Thanks for the review, Richard. No problem! > (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 wonder if it's a difference in rpmlint between F14 and F15? I would think they would be the same though. I'm building under mock, which is what koji does, right? So they should get identical results... Either way install "fixes" it. > > 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. Works for me. Is there an upstream to complain to? There didn't seem to be much activity on the project anymore... > (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. Ok! Thanks, Richard -- 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