https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2261201 Tim Flink <tflink@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #16 from Tim Flink <tflink@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Tom Rix from comment #15) > I would have liked to include a -test package, it had problems so I fell > back on testing during the build. This is one of the rough edges. OK, we can figure out better test packages later if that becomes possible. It's not really blocking and more of an issue for (automated) testing > I thought the guidance on complicated licensing was to comment in the spec > file. > All of the licenses themselves are acceptable. Yeah, I wasn't concerned about the licenses. I just wasn't sure whether the tags were sufficient for the BSD and Apache licenses which both stipulate that their copyright notice be included with any source or binary distributions. If the license text is only in source files, that text isn't included with distributed binaries. After a thread on the packaging list [1], it sounds like this subject is kinda known to be confusing at times and there isn't really a clear answer on what is supposed to happen. From what I gather, the most common approach in cases like this where the license file is upstream but doesn't include all the licenses actually used is to include upstream's license text file, file an issue requesting that upstream update their license file. [1] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/thread/FJCX5VM5XQP3Y3K4SY25SDAAX6ULTQEA/#FJCX5VM5XQP3Y3K4SY25SDAAX6ULTQEA Since I'm the one being a pain about this, I went ahead and filed an issue [2] and PR [3] with the MIOpen upstream addressing the incomplete LICENSE.txt file. [2] https://github.com/ROCm/MIOpen/issues/2757 [3] https://github.com/ROCm/MIOpen/pull/2758 This issue isn't enough to block review, though. -- 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=2261201 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202261201%23c16 -- _______________________________________________ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
