https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1750501
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |POST CC| |zbyszek@in.waw.pl Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zbyszek@in.waw.pl
--- Comment #12 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl --- Replying to some earlier comments first:
Unversioned so-files
fastbit-java: /usr/lib64/fastbit/libfastbitjni.so
That's OK. The file is not in the normal library lookup path.
- Package does not use a name that already exists.
This is a re-review, so the package obviously exists. fedora-review could be smarter, but it's not. When using fedora-review, please remove such comments in the future from it's output when it is clear that it is wrong.
# Main package is BSD; the Bison-generated parsers are GPLv3+ with exceptions; # contribs/fbmerge is GPLv2+ License: BSD and GPLv3+ with exceptions and GPLv2+
This one actually should be changed. A license describes the *binary* package [1]. In this particular case, the parser parts can only be included in the package because of the license exception. As the GPLv3-exception header says, "you may distribute that work under the terms of your choice". This is exactly what is happening here: the authors are distributing fastbit under the BSD license. Please remove any mention of GPLv3+ from the License lines.
Also, if fbmerge is GPLv2+, then this doesn't matter for the -devel and -java subpackages. Their license is just "BSD".
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ?rd=Licensing/FAQ#Does_the_Licen...
Otherwise, looks OK. + package name is OK + latest version + builds and installs OK + fedora-review is happy + scriptlets look OK (there are none ;)) + Provides/Requires/BR look OK
Package is RE-APPROVED. Please fix the license bits when re-importing.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org