https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1685200 --- Comment #6 from Matthew Krupcale <mkrupcale@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Thanks for the prompt review. (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #1) > Package looks mostly good. > > - %{_prefix}/share/doc/ → %{_docdir} > > - Licenses should be placed in %{_defaultlicensedir}/%{name} When you > specify an absolute path with %license, it doesn't copy the files. So either > manually move the files in %install, or patch the install scripts, or use > relative paths to locate the LICENSE files. Done[1]. (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #3) > Created attachment 1540776 [details] > Build.log on Rawhide > > The program doesn't compile on Rawhide. The list of errors is very long. Strange. These look like they have to do with libstdc++ and not build2. (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #4) > Heh it's working in Koji but not my local yet clean mock. > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33168751 That's interesting. I'm not sure what the difference is compared to local mock, but I also don't encounter these errors in COPR rawhide. (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #5) > - Got some GPLv2 and BSD in there: > > *No copyright* GPL (v2) > ----------------------- > build2-toolchain-0.9.0/libodb-2.5.0-b.11/LICENSE > build2-toolchain-0.9.0/libodb-sqlite-2.5.0-b.11/LICENSE > > BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License > --------------------------------- > build2-toolchain-0.9.0/build2-0.9.0/libbutl-0.9.0/libbutl/sha256c.c > build2-toolchain-0.9.0/build2-0.9.0/libbutl-0.9.0/libbutl/strptime.c > build2-toolchain-0.9.0/build2-0.9.0/libbutl-0.9.0/libbutl/timelocal.c > build2-toolchain-0.9.0/build2-0.9.0/libbutl-0.9.0/libbutl/timelocal.h > > BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License > --------------------------------------- > build2-toolchain-0.9.0/build2-0.9.0/libbutl-0.9.0/libbutl/sha1.c > > > Please add them to the License: field I believe the BSD license is listed under the libbutl{,-devel,-static} subpackages, which I believe are the only packages using BSD licensed code. The Licensing guidelines[2] don't appear to distinguish the short-names between BSD 3-clause and 2-clause. Is this proper? The case of the libodb license is a little more complicated. These are linked (currently statically due to the bundling) with the bpkg and bdep packages. Both of these packages state in their licenses[3,4] that they are exempt from the usual ODB licensing with the intention of allowing bpkg and bdep to be MIT-licensed[5]. I have been in contact with upstream[6], who is the author of both ODB and build2, about this matter, and I believe their intention is to allow bpkg and bdep to be purely MIT licensed rather than e.g. "MIT and GPLv2". Having read the exception, I believe this is possible provided that we do not modify the GPLv2 ODB code, but I'm not an expert on this matter. What do you suggest in this case? > and add a comment explaining the license breakdown. Done for libbutl[1]. > - These files should be utf-8: > > build2-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 > /usr/share/doc/build2/build2-build-system-manual-a4.ps > build2-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 > /usr/share/doc/build2/build2-build-system-manual-letter.ps > > Please fix them in %prep. Done[1]. [1] https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mkrupcale/build2/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00864655-build2/build2.spec [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#Good_Licenses [3] https://git.build2.org/cgit/bpkg/tree/LICENSE [4] https://git.build2.org/cgit/bdep/tree/LICENSE [5] https://git.codesynthesis.com/cgit/odb/odb-etc/tree/license-exceptions/build2-odb-license-exception.txt [6] private email communication, 2018-10-17 -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
