https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2033061
Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak(a)v3.sk> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |lkundrak(a)v3.sk
--- Comment #4 from Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak(a)v3.sk> ---
* Package named appropriately
* Packaging the latest version
* SPEC file clean and legible
* Macros used consistently
* Builds fine in mock
* MIT license is good for inclusion in Fedora
* Filelists sane (as far as Rust packaging goes anyway)
* Provides/Requires sane
* rpmlint is reasonably happy
rpmlint warns about this:
rust-ethtool-devel.noarch: W: files-duplicate
/usr/share/doc/rust-ethtool-devel/README.md
/usr/share/cargo/registry/ethtool-0.2.1/README.md
I guess that's okay for now. If possible, %exclude one of the copy and make
sure the remaining one is marked %doc. No big deal if you choose not to
though.
0.) License needs clarification
It seems that the package was intended to be licensed under the "MIT" license
terms, but the terms are missing.
What's coloqually known as "MIT" license typically includes this clause:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included
in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
That would be difficult to comply with given upstream doesn't include the
license text.
(In fact I'm calling the police right now, expect a knock on your door soon.)
The Licensing Guidelines have a suggestion on how to deal with this:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidel...
In short, you should just ask upstream to clarify things. In case they fail
to do so, copy the license text you believe upstream intended to use from a
canonical source and add it to the package.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2033061