https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868993 --- Comment #2 from Fabio Valentini <decathorpe@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Mat Booth from comment #1) > I just have a couple of queries: > > 1) > > Seems about half the source files are "ASL 2.0" instead of the "EPL-2.0 or > GPLv2", so I think the license field would be more accurate as this: > > ASL 2.0 and (EPL-2.0 or GPLv2 with exceptions) Good catch. I will use this License tag for now. > Maybe worth asking upstream if this is intentional because the POM license > only mentions EPL-2.0 and GPLv2. So either they intended to relicense these > files and the source headers are wrong or they did not intend to relicense > these files and the POM is wrong. Reported upstream: https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/servlet-api/issues/347 > 2) > > The old package has provides for these compat aliases: > > mvn(org.apache.geronimo.specs:geronimo-servlet_3.0_spec) > mvn(org.eclipse.jetty.orbit:javax.servlet) > > I assume if you omitted them here, then they are not used by any other > package in Fedora? Yes, exactly, this was intentional. "repoquery --whatrequires mvn(foo:bar)" for these two returns no packages, so I took this opportunity to clean them up. -- 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
