https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1983160
Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |decathorpe@gmail.com
--- Comment #6 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com ---
- "ASL 2.0 with exceptions" is not a valid license identifier, as you can see
by its absence from the official list: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#SoftwareLicenses
There was a thread about this license last year on fedora-legal-list. The final advice is that "ASL 2.0 with the LLVM exception" is equal to "ASL 2.0" for Fedora purposes. Therefore, the License field should be "ASL 2.0 or MIT".
See Richard Fontana's messages in this thread: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org/...
TIL. I opened a ticket with rust2rpm: https://pagure.io/fedora-rust/rust2rpm/issue/163
- I would argue that CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md and ORG_CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md are not
useful documentation for a Fedora package.
I agree. The automatic %doc detection quite rigorous, and includes lots of stuff we don't need. In fact, those files are *already* part of -devel files in any case, so adding them in %doc too is redundant: https://pagure.io/fedora-rust/rust2rpm/issue/164