On 09/01/2009 03:13 PM, Kalev Lember wrote:
On 08/31/2009 12:01 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> This should be "GPLv3+ and GPLv3+ with exceptions and GPLv2+ with
> exceptions". The point here is not to write pretty English, but to be 100%
> unambiguous and automatically parsable. If you replace that comma with
> "and", rpmlint will no longer complain.
Yes, that's what I also think. I mailed Jakub Jelinek (native gcc's
maintainer) a week ago and suggested that the license tag should read
"GPLv3+ and GPLv3+ with exceptions and GPLv2+ with exceptions", but it
seems he wasn't at office last week. Pinged again today.
Even if the license tag is slightly wrong, I think it should match the
one in the native package and the change to license should propagate
from the native gcc to mingw32-gcc.
Okay, got a reply from Jakub:
On 09/01/2009 03:22 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 03:13:13PM +0300, Kalev Lember wrote:
> On 08/25/2009 11:32 AM, Kalev Lember wrote:
>> I think the license tag should actually read:
>> GPLv3+ and GPLv3+ with exceptions and GPLv2+ with exceptions
>>
>> Is there a reason to use a license tag that rpmlint doesn't like?
>
> Hey,
>
> Did you get a chance to take a look at the license tag? See also
> Kevin Kofler's mail [1] in fedora-mingw list.
gcc license tag is correct, if rpmlint doesn't like it, rpmlint has
to be changed.
Jakub
--
Kalev