https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2028900
--- Comment #2 from Aleksei Bavshin alebastr89@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!