https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2477713
--- Comment #11 from Jerry James <[email protected]> --- Thank you for the review! (In reply to Mamoru TASAKA from comment #10) > * License: MIT AND CC0-1.0 > - Well, "the header-only json library dependency" is packaged in mnxdom > binary packages, > or it is just the dependency for mnxdom packages? > If the latter, I don't think json related license should be added to the > License tag > of this package, the License tag should show the information for this > package only. I added that because the reviewer for json-schema-validator asked for it (see bug 2477712). The justification was that, since json-devel is a header-only library, the code from it is compiled into this binary, so https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_field requires that ths json-devel license be part of this package's License field. I note that the Packaging Guidelines do not say this specifically, so if you insist, I will remove that from the License field. In that case, though, we should get clarification from the Packaging Committee as to whether this should be done for header-only packages or not. > * mnx-%{shortc}.tar.gz > - This is not packaged in binary rpm, so this does not appear in Licens > tag, but this source > itself must have compatible license on Fedora (as this is included in > src.rpm). > As far as I checked this, this is under W3C, correct? (If so, this is > okay for Fedora). Good catch. I have updated the SourceLicense field to capture this. > * BuildRequires: json-static > - I don't know well why "json-static" is chosen here, just using > BR: cmake(nlohmann_json) is enough? The Packaging Guidelines require it: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_packaging_header_only_libraries > * Requires: json-devel%{?_isa} > - This is not needed. mnxdom-devel binary installs mnxdom.pc, which > generates > "Requires: pkgconfig(nlohmann_json)" Yes, you are right. I have removed that line. > * mnxdom-soname.patch > - This means that soname / ABI is going to be maintained on Fedora > (downstream) side? For now, yes, as required by https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_downstream_so_name_versioning. I have asked upstream to add an soname: https://github.com/rpatters1/mnxdom/issues/45. -- 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=2477713 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202477713%23c11 -- _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] 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/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/tickets/issues/new
