Dne 16. 02. 24 v 1:21 Toshio Kuratomi napsal(a):
On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 2:06 PM Tim Flink <tflink@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Does anyone have knowledge on how situations like this have been handled in the past?I know in the past at least some packagers have submitted requests to upstream to include the additional license texts but I don't know if that was a general policy.
This IMHO is the right answer and there is also this guideline part of review guidelines [1]:
~~~SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
~~~IOW I believe that license tag should be always the source of truth and the rest needs to be clarified with upstream, but it is not blocker.
Vít[1]: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ReviewGuidelines/#_things_to_check_on_review
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- _______________________________________________ packaging mailing list -- packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to packaging-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/packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
