https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310128 --- Comment #10 from Petr Pisar <ppisar@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Jan Pokorný from comment #9) > - have you tried convincing upstream to version the library? I sent upstream all the patches. The next version contains two my patches. It does not contain the patch for building as a library. I did not receive any other response from the upstream. Therefore I conclude upstream is not interested in building a shared library. > - will libdivsufsort be used as yet another entry in the chained > unbundling? I did not think about unbundling it because it's pasted into middle of a source file. But I can add a "bundled(libdivsufsort)" Provides and then try to unbundle it. The linked upstream <http://code.google.com/p/libdivsufsort/> does not exist anymore. This metadata mirror <http://www.antepedia.com/detail/p/libdivsufsort.html> lists 2.0.1 as the latest release and the links to source archive still work. There seems to be <https://github.com/lh3/libdivsufsort> and more recent <https://github.com/y-256/libdivsufsort>. Thank you for the link. > - should not -libs package declare mere MIT license in case > libdivsufsort part will not be unbundled? Only the libdivsufsort code is MIT. zpaq and zpaq-devel packages could be marked as "Public Domain" only. After unbundling, zpaq-libs could also be marked so. But I haven't yet verified unbundling is possible. > I wonder if the "combined" licenses doesn't effectively make the library > being MIT licensed (you shouldn't touch it unless you agree to MIT). Whatever "combined" means, listing all involved licenses does not harm. And it's more accurate because on source level, some lines have one license, other lines have other license. > Subjective opinion: in this case of "public domain except this well > defined part (MIT)" provided in free form within the source files, > it's not needed. This is good point. Except that actually means a binary package must provide the libdivsufsort copyright and license text in addition to the shared library. I will extract it from the source and package it as a %license. -- 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