On 09/01/2009 03:13 PM, Kalev Lember wrote: > On 08/31/2009 12:01 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote: >> This should be "GPLv3+ and GPLv3+ with exceptions and GPLv2+ with >> exceptions". The point here is not to write pretty English, but to be 100% >> unambiguous and automatically parsable. If you replace that comma with >> "and", rpmlint will no longer complain. > > Yes, that's what I also think. I mailed Jakub Jelinek (native gcc's > maintainer) a week ago and suggested that the license tag should read > "GPLv3+ and GPLv3+ with exceptions and GPLv2+ with exceptions", but it > seems he wasn't at office last week. Pinged again today. > > Even if the license tag is slightly wrong, I think it should match the > one in the native package and the change to license should propagate > from the native gcc to mingw32-gcc.
Okay, got a reply from Jakub: On 09/01/2009 03:22 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 03:13:13PM +0300, Kalev Lember wrote: >> On 08/25/2009 11:32 AM, Kalev Lember wrote: >>> I think the license tag should actually read: >>> GPLv3+ and GPLv3+ with exceptions and GPLv2+ with exceptions >>> >>> Is there a reason to use a license tag that rpmlint doesn't like? >> >> Hey, >> >> Did you get a chance to take a look at the license tag? See also >> Kevin Kofler's mail [1] in fedora-mingw list. > > gcc license tag is correct, if rpmlint doesn't like it, rpmlint has > to be changed. > > Jakub -- Kalev _______________________________________________ fedora-mingw mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fedora-mingw
