https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2028900 --- Comment #3 from Fabio Valentini <decathorpe@xxxxxxxxx> --- > I actually used the script from the rust2rpm repo. I prefer a shorter list of unique license tags. > Will recheck if the result is matching, just in case. The resulting License tag should be the same. However, I've gotten criticism about using just the "short list" version of the licenses as a comment, since it's actually pretty useless (no information about which bundled dependency is included or under which license it is), which is why I started including the more detailed list in all packages I update. > The license file is small enough to prefer keeping it in git. In this case LICENSE in the root of a src.fp.o package repository could be misinterpreted as a license for the package spec, and the point of renaming is to avoid the ambiguity. That is true. If you want to commit it into git instead of adding it as a Source, that makes sense. === For the final review, I'd like to wait until the support for passing CFLAGS etc. is merged into the rust macros. Because I don't like the idea of having parsers for potentially untrusted input written in C being compiled without security hardening flags :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2028900 _______________________________________________ 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
