https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2293766 Nils Philippsen <nphilipp@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |nphilipp@xxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #13 from Nils Philippsen <nphilipp@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Just came across this open tab 😀, so here are my 2¢: (In reply to Akashdeep Dhar from comment #12) > > Ideally, a summary != description. > > I will probably use the current longer description as the summary here but > worst-case scenario, I will still prefer to have the same string in both > places. As per https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_summary_and_description 😉: “The summary should be a short and concise description of the package. The description expands upon this.” How about (wrap to 80 chars): --- 8< --- Summary: Service to create bootable USB storage media ... %description SyncStar lets ordinary users install bootable operating systems onto USB storage media. It is intended to be deployed on kiosk appliances, for instance to offer this service to conference guests. --- >8 --- > > The licensecheck.txt mentions these two files with the MIT license. I'm not sure if the package license should then be "AGPL-3.0-or-later AND MIT" or not. > > I'm not sure here either as my license-fu is weak, but I think that the MIT > license is permissive enough to be compatible with the AGPL-3.0-or-later > license. Here’s what https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-field/#_basic_rule has to say: “… Unless your package includes multiple binary subpackages and you opt to specify subpackage-specific License: tags, the Preamble License: tag expression should be an enumeration of all licenses found in the source code of the package, but excluding any licenses that cover material in the source code that is not copied into the binary RPM(s), either verbatim or transformed in some way (for example, by compilation). …” I understand this to mean that it should be “AGPL-3.0-or-later AND MIT”. -- 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=2293766 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202293766%23c13 -- _______________________________________________ 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
