https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1219422 --- Comment #3 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Petr Šabata from comment #2) > (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #1) > > Is there any plan of mujs providing a shared library? > > Not that I am aware. OK. > > Where does "and MIT" come from? Afaics, the package is AGPL as a whole, and > > the only two things which could have a license are the executable and the > > static library, which are both AGPL. > > From jsdtoa.c and utf.c, both being used by the library. Then this doesn't matter: the license specified is the license of the binary packages (or stuff in the binary packages), which is all AGPLv3+, so the license should be specified as AGPLv3+ [1]. [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License:_field > > Some suggestions: > > - Add '%global _docdir_fmt %{name}' so there's just one license dir for both > > subpackages > > This sounds good, I'll consider it. > > > - 'make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}' can be replaced with '%makeinstall' > > Probably, however, I don't find it any nicer or better and our guidelines > explicitly forbid using it when `make install DESTDIR...' works. > (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/ > Guidelines#Why_the_.25makeinstall_macro_should_not_be_used) Yikes, I meant %make_install. -- 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