https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243758 --- Comment #8 from gil cattaneo <puntogil@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Till Hofmann from comment #7) > (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #4) > > (In reply to Till Hofmann from comment #3) > > > [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > > > Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/maven-poms > > > /apacheds-jdbm, /usr/share/java/apacheds-jdbm > > > > > > Please fix this. > > > > This is a bug of fedora review tool. All owner/s directory are managed by > > our java tools. > > Please, see 1243758-apacheds-jdbm/files.dir files > > I'm not sure which java tools you're talking about. http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/javapackages-tools and see also https://fedorahosted.org/released/javapackages/doc/#maven > > > Could you also please indicate in a comment in the Spec file that this > > > package uses the jCharts variance of the BSD license. This would have helped > > > sorting out the correct license. > > > > This package is a fork of http://jdbm.sourceforge.net/ the original files > > are under BSD with attribution license. > > See: http://jdbm.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/jdbm/jdbm/LICENSE.txt > > or better: http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/jdbm.git/ (no more available > > for Fedora > 20) > > OK thanks for the information. I'm not sure if you understood me correctly: > The license is fine. I just wished there'd been a comment like "Some files > are licensed under the jCharts variant of BSD" so I could have understood > the licensing more quickly. > > > > Open also a Bundling Exception https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/564 > > until jdbm will be completely replaced by mavibot > > (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #6) > > (In reply to Till Hofmann from comment #3) > > > Please do not add the License file yourself. > > > > this is the "normal" practice > > > > Hmm I guess you're right, I misremembered the guidelines about missing > license files. Although the Licensing guidelines say [2]: > "Packagers who choose to do this should ensure that they have exhausted all > attempts to work with upstream to include the license text as part of the > source code, or at least, to confirm the full license text explicitly with > the upstream, as this minimizes the risk on the packager." > In my understanding this means that you should try to contact upstream and > ask them to include the license file (which you did), and only if upstream > does not respond, you should include the file yourself. But since the > license is quite clear, directly including it is fine with me. > > > > > > (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #6) > > > > Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/apacheds-jdbm.spec > > SRPM URL: > > https://gil.fedorapeople.org/apacheds-jdbm-2.0.0-0.2.M3.fc22.src.rpm > > This is still the old Spec file, isn't it? I don't see any difference. strange ... i uploaded new spec file and src rpm some ago -- 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