Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
             Status|NEW                         |POST
                 CC|                            |
           Assignee|    |

--- Comment #12 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <> ---
Replying to some earlier comments first:

> Unversioned so-files
> --------------------
> fastbit-java: /usr/lib64/fastbit/
That's OK. The file is not in the normal library lookup path.

> - Package does not use a name that already exists.
This is a re-review, so the package obviously exists. fedora-review could be
smarter, but it's not.
When using fedora-review, please remove such comments in the future from it's
output when it is
clear that it is wrong.

> # Main package is BSD; the Bison-generated parsers are GPLv3+ with exceptions;
> # contribs/fbmerge is GPLv2+
> License:        BSD and GPLv3+ with exceptions and GPLv2+

This one actually should be changed. A license describes the *binary* package
[1]. In this particular case,
the parser parts can only be included in the package because of the license
exception. As the GPLv3-exception
header says, "you may distribute that work under the terms of your choice".
This is exactly what is happening
here: the authors are distributing fastbit under the BSD license. Please remove
any mention of GPLv3+ from the
License lines.

Also, if fbmerge is GPLv2+, then this doesn't matter for the -devel and -java
subpackages. Their license
is just "BSD".


Otherwise, looks OK.
+ package name is OK
+ latest version
+ builds and installs OK
+ fedora-review is happy
+ scriptlets look OK (there are none ;))
+ Provides/Requires/BR look OK

Package is RE-APPROVED. Please fix the license bits when re-importing.

You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
package-review mailing list --
To unsubscribe send an email to
Fedora Code of Conduct:
List Guidelines:
List Archives:

Reply via email to