https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027770 --- Comment #11 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec@xxxxxxxxx> --- Now, I don't think we understand each other. I have run the fedora-review tool, which basically runs the licensecheck tool but presents the results in a slightly different way. These tools check all source files (after possible patching in %prep), and the result is in the attachment. Bottom line is that here is a lot of licenses.However, it should not be that hard to sort out since they are all compatible. The bundling issues will probably require more work. After a closer look I find at least the following bundled libraries: - build-assert, check_type, container_of, hash, htable and list from http://ccodearchive.net/ (ccan dir). - http_parser from the existing http-parser package - pcl from https://github.com/knz/pcl. - The build-aux files from lib.idn.h - Several files form autogen-libopts (.../libopts/...). Other packages have a bundling exception for these, so it should not be a problem to apply for one for those. Before that, we need to check on the mailing list, there might be some kind of overall decision for these libs, don't know. - The gl directory might also be something bundled, but I havn't looked more into this. According to the links in comment #8, these must be unbundled. If there is an existing fedora package, it should be used. If not, you should package these dependencies as separate packages. patch the build system to use them and remove them in %prep i. e., unbundle it. In some case you might need to apply for bundling exception, but normally this is the last resort if nothing else works. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review