https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1725840 Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Jakub Jelen from comment #3) > If I understand the licensing right, the BSD license is permissive and > derivative/combined work can be licensed under different FOSS license. The > same, I think apply for the MIT license. > > If that is wrong understanding, I can indeed list also the other two, or > what would be your proposal in this way? No, that is correct. I know some maintainers prefer to list all the licenses explicitly in this situation, so I just wanted to make sure you knew. It is fine to keep the License tag as LGPLv2+. > > 2. For ease of verifying that the correct compiler flags are in use, please > > either pass --disable-silent-rules to %configure, or add V=1 to the make > > invocation. Incidentally, the %make_build macro is equivalent to the make > > invocation in the spec file. It's a convenient shorthand that I > > recommend. > > I used the %make_build macro. Thanks. Okay, but it would still be good to pass --disable-silent-rules to %configure, or add V=1 to the %make_build line. That shows the compiler flags in use. > SimCList is simple copylib. I do not see that packaged in the Fedora and I > do not think it make sense to do that since it is single-small file. I will > specify it as a bundled. Okay, good. > I am not sure what is the best way to handle this, but I would certainly not > call that a bundled library, rather derivative work. Yes, you're right. That's OpenCT-derived code, rather than OpenCT itself. This case is covered in the Guidelines: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#bundling See the second bullet item: "Use the Versioning Guidelines to determine an appropriate version for the library, if possible. If the library has been forked from an upstream, use the upstream version that was most recently merged in or rebased onto, or the version the original library carried at the time of the fork." That's the case here. The code started off as OpenCT, but was forked. So the Provides should still be listed, with the version that OpenCT carried at the time of the fork. > The src/Makefile.am links them to the final so only if we build the library > without pcsc. These symbols are defined in /usr/include/PCSC/debuglog.h > (from /usr/lib64/libpcsclite.so), which loads this library and therefore > provides these symbols if I understand the logic here. Okay, I suspected something of the sort was going on, but failed to find where the symbols were defined. That's fine, then. So please make the compiler flags visible, and add a Provides for OpenCT. Neither issue is serious, so I will go ahead and approve this review request. -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
