https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919639
Otto Urpelainen <oturpe(a)iki.fi> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |oturpe(a)iki.fi
Flags| |needinfo?(hdegoede(a)redhat.c
| |om)
--- Comment #17 from Otto Urpelainen <oturpe(a)iki.fi> ---
@hdegoede(a)redhat.com are you still planning to take this for full review? I
could also take over if you do not intend to complete the review.
Regarding packaging, I think the upstream tarball is not suitable as a source
entry in the specfile. Extracted, it is a > 200 MiB beast with lots of stuff
that is not needed for Fedora packaging at all, at least (sub)directories
called vs2015, windows and macos, probably others too. I have been told that
Calibre package [1] performs similar actions, it could be used as a base for
this.
[1]:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/calibre
Licensing-wise, I doubt that the license really is GPLv2 or GPLv2+.
fedora-review gave me this:
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License, Version
2", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU
General Public License v2.0 or later", "GNU General Public License
v2.0 or later [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or
later", "Expat License [generated file]", "GNU General Public
License", "zlib/libpng license", "GNU Library General Public
License
v2 or later", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later",
"BSD
2-clause "Simplified" License", "*No copyright* Do What The Fuck
Youither
Want To Public License, Version 2", "Expat License", "ISC
License",
"BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "*No
copyright* GNU General
Public License", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v2.0 or
later", "FreeType License", "Public domain",
"[generated file]", "FSF
Unlimited License (with Retention) [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited
License [generated file]", "*No copyright* Public domain",
"Libpng
License", "BSD 4-clause "Original" or "Old"
License", "GNU Lesser
General Public License, Version 2.1", "*No copyright* GNU Library
General Public License, Version 2.0", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser
General Public License", "*No copyright* zlib/libpng license",
"GNU
Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later [obsolete FSF postal
address (Temple Place)]", "the Unlicense", "GNU Library General
Public
License v2 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]",
"the Unlicense Expat License", "FreeType License [generated
file]",
"NTP License [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License (with
Retention) GNU General Public License, Version 2", "FSF Unlimited
License (with Retention)", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention) GNU
General Public License v2.0 or later", "*No copyright* [generated
file]", "zlib/libpng license Khronos License", "zlib/libpng
license
Expat License", "Khronos License", "*No copyright* SGI Free
Software
License B", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention) GNU General Public
License, Version 2 [generated file]", "BSD 4-clause "Original"
or
"Old" License GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "Apache
License 2.0", "NTP License", "GNU Lesser General Public
License", "GNU
Library General Public License, Version 2.0", "Public domain GNU
Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later", "zlib/libpng license
[generated file]", "zlib/libpng license Public domain",
"zlib/libpng
license NTP License", "*No copyright* Boost Software License 1.0",
"Boost Software License 1.0", "Apple MIT License GNU Library General
Public License v2 or later", "Expat License GNU Lesser General Public
License v2.1 or later", "GNU General Public License, Version 3",
"*No
copyright* Common Public License 1.0". 3105 files have unknown
license.
Not all of them end up in the binary rpm, some are only found inside vs2015
directory, for example, but the situation should be checked. It also seems that
some licenses that require attaching the full license text are not respected in
that manner (note that this needs to be handled for source rpm even if the file
is not used for binary rpm, because the source rpm is distributed by Fedora,
too). Probably it would be the best to first create a smaller source tarball as
suggested above, so that there would be less files and licenses to check.
--
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