https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1685200
--- Comment #6 from Matthew Krupcale <mkrupcale(a)matthewkrupcale.com> ---
Thanks for the prompt review.
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #1)
Package looks mostly good.
- %{_prefix}/share/doc/ → %{_docdir}
- Licenses should be placed in %{_defaultlicensedir}/%{name} When you
specify an absolute path with %license, it doesn't copy the files. So either
manually move the files in %install, or patch the install scripts, or use
relative paths to locate the LICENSE files.
Done[1].
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #3)
Created attachment 1540776 [details]
Build.log on Rawhide
The program doesn't compile on Rawhide. The list of errors is very long.
Strange. These look like they have to do with libstdc++ and not build2.
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #4)
That's interesting. I'm not sure what the difference is compared to local mock,
but I also don't encounter these errors in COPR rawhide.
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #5)
- Got some GPLv2 and BSD in there:
*No copyright* GPL (v2)
-----------------------
build2-toolchain-0.9.0/libodb-2.5.0-b.11/LICENSE
build2-toolchain-0.9.0/libodb-sqlite-2.5.0-b.11/LICENSE
BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License
---------------------------------
build2-toolchain-0.9.0/build2-0.9.0/libbutl-0.9.0/libbutl/sha256c.c
build2-toolchain-0.9.0/build2-0.9.0/libbutl-0.9.0/libbutl/strptime.c
build2-toolchain-0.9.0/build2-0.9.0/libbutl-0.9.0/libbutl/timelocal.c
build2-toolchain-0.9.0/build2-0.9.0/libbutl-0.9.0/libbutl/timelocal.h
BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License
---------------------------------------
build2-toolchain-0.9.0/build2-0.9.0/libbutl-0.9.0/libbutl/sha1.c
Please add them to the License: field
I believe the BSD license is listed under the libbutl{,-devel,-static}
subpackages, which I believe are the only packages using BSD licensed code. The
Licensing guidelines[2] don't appear to distinguish the short-names between BSD
3-clause and 2-clause. Is this proper?
The case of the libodb license is a little more complicated. These are linked
(currently statically due to the bundling) with the bpkg and bdep packages.
Both of these packages state in their licenses[3,4] that they are exempt from
the usual ODB licensing with the intention of allowing bpkg and bdep to be
MIT-licensed[5]. I have been in contact with upstream[6], who is the author of
both ODB and build2, about this matter, and I believe their intention is to
allow bpkg and bdep to be purely MIT licensed rather than e.g. "MIT and GPLv2".
Having read the exception, I believe this is possible provided that we do not
modify the GPLv2 ODB code, but I'm not an expert on this matter. What do you
suggest in this case?
and add a comment explaining the license breakdown.
Done for libbutl[1].
- These files should be utf-8:
build2-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8
/usr/share/doc/build2/build2-build-system-manual-a4.ps
build2-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8
/usr/share/doc/build2/build2-build-system-manual-letter.ps
Please fix them in %prep.
Done[1].
[1]
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mkrupcale/build2/fedora-r...
[2]
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#Good_Licenses
[3]
https://git.build2.org/cgit/bpkg/tree/LICENSE
[4]
https://git.build2.org/cgit/bdep/tree/LICENSE
[5]
https://git.codesynthesis.com/cgit/odb/odb-etc/tree/license-exceptions/bu...
[6] private email communication, 2018-10-17
--
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