https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2184237
--- Comment #8 from Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com --- (In reply to Maxwell G from comment #4)
The "# Ineligble for upstreaming" comment might benefit form more rationale/reason. Although I have not seen if the commit message sin the patches don't already do that.
You can see the specfile and patches in https://git.sr.ht/~gotmax23/fedora-python-orjson/tree if that's easier than unpacking the SRPM. I think the messages in the patches themselves (they're git formatted patches) explain/justify the patches, but let me know if anything in particular needs to be clarified.
Thanks, being able to clickity-click to the patches thought the web-browser indeed makes it easier. Will check the messages.
What is the purpose of the outmost parenthesis here? "((Apache-2.0 OR MIT) AND BSD-3-Clause)" ? Should the License be flattened to: "(Apache-2.0 OR MIT) AND (Apache-2.0 OR BSL-1.0) AND AND BSD-3-Clause AND Apache-2.0"?
"(Apache-2.0 OR MIT) AND BSD-3-Clause" is the license of encoding_rs. I'd prefer not to preform effective licensing analysis/flattening if the License: value is still reasonable without it.
This did not seem like a case of "effective licensing" to me, so I asked: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org/...