Looking for example at git-lfs: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/git-lfs/blob/master/f/git-lfs.spec I am afraid that the license field is wrong. Since the Go packages are statically linked, that means also content of all the BR is part of the binary packages and therefore should include their licenses. This also applies to Rust and all other statically linked packages.

I believe the guidelines should be amended to handle this scenario and all the packages fixed appropriately.

Thoughts?

Vít _______________________________________________ legal mailing list -- legal(a)lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEcwgJ58gsbV5f5dMcEV1auJxcHh4FAl714H4ACgkQEV1auJxc Hh78ow//YSYs1uSZul0G4FZY5arc/Rxhsdsne5ENo8rFoltrebwfwHBxjOmfaD+9 elPQcPb5P0kYljTt3c3+3m0nvpZPVFFycE+ZlHG+cFgQCSwQ8MBR0ggIJPFtPz6G 4HC5VBT7m8bmw/EFk5Gx9D+OZ+NYAlIxIMOQXSnUoZCZAe+YdIohhvVGXh3p+Czj WxYmFMqG9ECP6joXEiZE4O4pdA1S0wRL3w1AVMZTyqQSwIPqTOWuIcsb8xj6Dg++ EfR56Z1L8vnbgajH/F6RzJow4CQJt7qaCnl/ncPUFw194W9gyij75HvtudfJLerb JoLXCqqa+kTC18RDjEaJTXFPbrticEMSGaHIWDV+KQU4kWAPlM00Qq2ikVPn01AM 23G1T40c8WO/H+jiUtRxBIebaC16BGGf8uMavLocCm0PtvzDExXbNKXsgiKZB9N5 nl1DmeDHtoUpUUFkOCh6lbYfSZaz2no9W+wGgXMTwGYcpq2UYg0G3dY4gWwy1o+v AZbpgoSCyPobqmd54qRWKH7XGXbvTla4qWggL/VMU/jzxPRtnfnMkHmSULA57M36 zDYs8ff6pUorM1qv/3MJ5BruN0y/QOwMq6dXdKItNm7mAEJ+95S+elh7SFOpQx69 VnwYfBlWX6Fn93Ti1F7MEcouh9HXN+T1YBWpYBniInqLOny7n4s= =QPwA -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On Fri, 2020-06-26 at 13:48 +0200, Igor Raits wrote: > On Fri, 2020-06-26 at 13:33 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > Looking for example at git-lfs: > > > > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/git-lfs/blob/master/f/git-lfs.spec > > > > I am afraid that the license field is wrong. Since the Go packages > > are > > statically linked, that means also content of all the BR is part of > > the > > binary packages and therefore should include their licenses. This > > also > > applies to Rust and all other statically linked packages. > > I think we already do it fine for Rust, no? > > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-ripgrep/blob/master/f/rust-ripgre... > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-bat/blob/master/f/rust-bat.spec#_35 > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-starship/blob/master/f/rust-stars... > > and so on. Forgot to mention that we even have script to generate those: https://pagure.io/fedora-rust/rust2rpm/blob/master/f/tools/fedora-helper.py > > > > > I believe the guidelines should be amended to handle this scenario > > and > > all the packages fixed appropriately. > > We've also discussed this here: > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-rpick/pull-request/1 > > > > > Thoughts? > > I think Pull Request is very welcomed in the packaging guidelines. > > > > > Vít > > > > _______________________________________________ > > legal mailing list -- legal(a)lists.fedoraproject.org > > To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org > > Fedora Code of Conduct: > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > > List Guidelines: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > > List Archives: > > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org - -- Igor Raits <ignatenkobrain(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; _______________________________________________ Rust mailing list -- rust(a)lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to rust-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/rust@lists.fedoraproject.org