https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868993



--- Comment #2 from Fabio Valentini <[email protected]> ---
(In reply to Mat Booth from comment #1)
> I just have a couple of queries:
> 
> 1)
> 
> Seems about half the source files are "ASL 2.0" instead of the "EPL-2.0 or
> GPLv2", so I think the license field would be more accurate as this:
> 
> ASL 2.0 and (EPL-2.0 or GPLv2 with exceptions)

Good catch. I will use this License tag for now.

> Maybe worth asking upstream if this is intentional because the POM license
> only mentions EPL-2.0 and GPLv2. So either they intended to relicense these
> files and the source headers are wrong or they did not intend to relicense
> these files and the POM is wrong.

Reported upstream:
https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/servlet-api/issues/347

> 2)
> 
> The old package has provides for these compat aliases:
> 
> mvn(org.apache.geronimo.specs:geronimo-servlet_3.0_spec)
> mvn(org.eclipse.jetty.orbit:javax.servlet)
> 
> I assume if you omitted them here, then they are not used by any other
> package in Fedora?

Yes, exactly, this was intentional.
"repoquery --whatrequires mvn(foo:bar)" for these two returns no packages, so I
took this opportunity to clean them up.


-- 
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 -- [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]

Reply via email to