https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1219422 --- Comment #4 from Petr Šabata <psabata@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #3) > (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 The binary is built from source licensed under both AGPLv3+ and MIT terms. What's the problem here? Why should the tag list only one fo these two just because upstream doesn't mention the other in the README file? These files were written by different people and I doubt the mujs author is relicensing them in this project. > > > 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. I still like the current variant better. -- 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