https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1725924
--- Comment #10 from Dan Horák <dan(a)danny.cz> ---
(In reply to Steven Jay Munroe from comment #9)
> pveclib.src: W: invalid-license APACHE
So you want this spelled out as "Apache Software License 2.0" or the short
form "ASL 2.0" ?
should be the short name from
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Good_Licenses
> pveclib.ppc64le: E: shared-lib-without-dependency-information
/usr/lib64/libpvec.so.0.0.0
The current build only uses the static libraries for some unit tests. As is
these libraries only contains arrays of large numeric constants. But this
might change in later pveclib version are more complex operations are added.
> pveclib.ppc64le: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/licenses/pveclib/COPYING
LICENSE
looks like I am caught on the horns of the "LICENSE" vs "COPYING"
controversy:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5678462/should-i-provide-a-license-txt-
or-copying-txt-file-in-my-project
The symlink avoids duplicating the file. While preserving COPYING for lint
checks that insist on that file is there.
Not sure why it is "dangling" because it is used in Makefile.am
+dist_license_DATA = COPYING
+dist_doc_DATA = CONTRIBUTING.md README.md ChangeLog.md
Based on
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1536209 I assumed this
is what you (Fedora) wanted.
AFAIK it's OK to have the license text part of the autotools "docs" and
then
the rpmbuild will care about the details in the background when %license and
%doc tags are used in the spec.
--
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