[Bug 2224783] Review Request: dragonbox - Reference implementation of Dragonbox in C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2224783
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek(a)in.waw.pl> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags| |fedora-review+
Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |zbyszek(a)in.waw.pl
Status|NEW |POST
--- Comment #10 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek(a)in.waw.pl> ---
With the latest changes, the review is trivial:
+ package name is OK
+ latest version
+ license is acceptable for Fedora (Apache-2.0 and change)
- license is specified correctly
(see below)
+ builds and installs OK
+ BR/R/P look reasonable
License: Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception AND BSL-1.0
Shouldn't this be "OR" instead? Both files that are in the binary package
have the same header that says "Alternatively, the contents of this file may be
used under
the terms of the BSL".
Please add a comment how the license is derived.
I don't think this makes any difference in practice, so the
package is APPROVED.
--
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2224783
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...