https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2028900
--- Comment #2 from Aleksei Bavshin <alebastr89(a)gmail.com> ---
(In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #1)
Initial comments:
- You modified the "License" tag of the source package (which is still
"only
MIT") instead of that of the built package that contains the statically
linked binary. You can take a look here for an example how to specify binary
package license correctly:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-fedora-update-feedback/blob/rawhide/
f/rust-fedora-update-feedback.spec
Right. Thanks for catching!
It's embarrassing, because I knew this and even confirmed with the packaging
guidelines... but forgot to apply :)
The command to run in mock shell after a build "--without check" and `mock
install dnf-utils` to generate the list of packages+licenses is
`dnf repoquery --cacheonly "rust-*-devel" --installed --qf "# %{LICENSE}:
%{source_name} %{version}"`
I actually used the script from the rust2rpm repo. I prefer a shorter list of
unique license tags.
Will recheck if the result is matching, just in case.
- You don't need to modify the file name of the license if
you're taking it
verbatim from upstream.
The license file is small enough to prefer keeping it in git. In this case
LICENSE in the root of a src.fp.o package repository could be misinterpreted as
a license for the package spec, and the point of renaming is to avoid the
ambiguity.
Thanks for the review!
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2028900