https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2308448 --- Comment #23 from Ming Lei <minlei@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #20) > Package looks mostly good now. Two minor issues: Thanks for the review! > > 1. Please document why clang-libs dependency is necessary, for example like > this: > > ``` > # dependency for bundled vendored crate > BuildRequires: clang-libs > ``` > > When switching away from building with vendored dependencies, that will make > it obvious that this can be removed at that point. > > 2. The license summary is still not documented in the spec file, only the > resulting License tag. > > While I think this is no longer strictly required, documenting it this way > makes it *much* easier to update the License tag when packaging new versions > (or, in this case, when updating the vendor tarball). > > I would suggest to do something like this: > > ``` > # rublk and crate dependencies: > # ============================= > # 0BSD OR MIT OR Apache-2.0 > # Apache-2.0 OR BSL-1.0 > # Apache-2.0 OR MIT > # Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception OR Apache-2.0 OR MIT > # BSD-3-Clause > # GPL-2.0-or-later > # MIT > # MIT OR Apache-2.0 > # MIT OR Zlib OR Apache-2.0 > # MPL-2.0+ > # Unlicense OR MIT > # code derived from Unicode data: > # Unicode-DFS-2016 (in regex-syntax) > License: (0BSD OR MIT OR Apache-2.0) AND (Apache-2.0 OR BSL-1.0) AND > (Apache-2.0 OR MIT) AND (Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception OR Apache-2.0 OR > MIT) AND BSD-3-Clause AND GPL-2.0-or-later AND MIT AND (MIT OR Apache-2.0) > AND (MIT OR Zlib OR Apache-2.0) AND MPL-2.0+ AND (Unlicense OR MIT) AND > Unicode-DFS-2016 > # LICENSE.dependencies contains a full license breakdown > ``` > > Additionally, there's some duplication in the License tag. For example, > "(Apache-2.0 OR MIT)" and "(MIT OR Apache-2.0)" are equivalent, you can drop > one of them. OK, will fix the above two in V5. > > === > > When do you plan to start submitting missing review requests for the missing > dependencies? It has been started actually, futures-locks is one dependency, once it is merged, qcow2-rs can be ready to go. Then I can work on other dependencies, and the biggest blocker should be smol. thanks, -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2308448 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202308448%23c23 -- _______________________________________________ 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
