https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103 --- Comment #30 from Jan Pokorný <jpokorny@xxxxxxxxxx> --- 1. Ah, I see, there's a little misunderstanding here, we indeed polemized about "--%{?with_sctp:en}%{!?with_sctp:dis}able-libknet-sctp}", but the disagreement did not cover > %{?with_sctp:--enable-libknet-sctp} \ > %{!?with_sctp:--disable-libknet-sctp} \ variant from [comment 11] (with the surrounding changes), which is hardly disputable and still better than the overcombined original 2. I am talking about README.license included in the tarball that's included in the SRPM (quick tip: you can use Midnight Commander to enter RPM files, and subsequently CONTENTS.cpio and any nested tarball that's present there), i.e., file of kronosnet proper: https://github.com/kronosnet/kronosnet/blob/master/README.licence my take is that it provides a definitive answer what (and only what) should License tag for libraries vs. application/executable packages contain -- see also [comment 21]; you may want to check this very conclusion with upstream, though 3. certainly a matter of advanced compiled code packaging fu (but no need to stress about this as we are here to help), though the SHOULD recommendation has its merit -- beside being nicer, it also offers flexibility in terms of what particular package will deliver the functionality requested like that, making the dependency expressed the most descriptive way at our disposal in Fedora 4. I mean, it may make reasons for test builds, but it will be catching eyes of anyone working on downstream packages needlessly -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
