[Bug 707819] Review Request: DSDP - Software for semidefinite programming

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=707819

--- Comment #3 from Jerry James <loganjerry at gmail.com> 2011-06-01 15:56:02 EDT ---
Thanks for the review, Richard.

(In reply to comment #1)
> DSDP.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/libdsdp.so.5.8 0775L
> 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 10 warnings.
> 
> I'm thinking we should fix the error. Maybe change the "cp -p" to "install -p
> -m 0755..."

Interesting.  I don't get that when building on a real F15 machine (i.e., not
mock).  I wonder what the difference is.  Anyhow, I've gone with your suggested
change.

> I'm not sure what we should do about the last warning...
> ---
> $ rpmlint -I shared-lib-calls-exit

Complain bitterly to upstream.  Seriously.  I can't do anything about this
without changing the library's API.  This is a bad thing for a library to do,
but repairing it is upstream's job.

(In reply to comment #2)
> I can't find anywhere where the license type is specified. The license file
> just says it's ok to use/distribute as long as the license file is included. I
> didn't find any evidence of a MIT license in the source files either using
> grep.
>
> Perhaps it would be better to use:
> "Freely redistributable without restriction" per the guidelines[1]?

It is not identified specifically as MIT, no.  I just compared the terms in
dsdp-license to the various MIT variants listed here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/MIT

This license appears to me to be substantially similar.  Still, we should
proceed with caution.  I'll ask about this license on fedora-legal-list.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.