https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2049689
Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jkadlcik@redhat.com
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Thank you for the package,
License: Apache-2.0
The licensecheck found also:
*No copyright* OpenSSL License ------------------------------ awscrt-0.16.12/crt/aws-lc/crypto/fipsmodule/bn/asm/x86_64-gcc.c
BSD 3-Clause License -------------------- awscrt-0.16.12/crt/aws-lc/crypto/x509v3/v3_pci.c awscrt-0.16.12/crt/aws-lc/crypto/x509v3/v3_pcia.c
BSD 3-Clause License Apache License 2.0 --------------------------------------- awscrt-0.16.12/crt/aws-c-common/source/posix/time.c
CMU License ----------- awscrt-0.16.12/crt/s2n/pq-crypto/kyber_r3/KeccakP-brg_endian_avx2.h
And many different files under many different licenses. Attaching the whole file, so you can see for yourself. Should we add them to the License field? If yes, please add a comment to the spec file, describing what license applies to what files.
# the code is not big endian friendly ExcludeArch: s390x
According to the packaging guidelines https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_architecture_bui...
Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch needs to have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number should then be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. New packages will not have bugzilla entries during the review process, so they should put this description in the comment until the package is approved, then file the bugzilla entry, and replace the long explanation with the bug number.