https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1922869 --- Comment #4 from Neal Gompa <ngompa13@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Carl George 🤠 from comment #3) > Per guidelines [0], the license field refers to the license of the contents > of the binary rpm. I'm not sure how we handle that for the top level > license when there is no binary package corresponding to the top level > package (no %files section). Since several subpackages have tukit in their > name, would it make more sense to use tukit as the top level package name? > It's entirely possible in the future that transactional-update will become a binary package if the stuff is adapted for non-SUSE distributions. For now, I'd like to leave this as-is. > Based on the COPYING file tukit-libs and tukit-devel are "GPLv2+ or > LGPLv2+". If you believe that contradicts the header text in the relevant > files please raise the issue upstream. > > [0] > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ > LicensingGuidelines/#_license_field I definitely will talk to upstream about this to clarify it, but I'll go ahead an update it to match the COPYING file. -- 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
