https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885495
--- Comment #24 from Carl George 🤠<c...@redhat.com> ---
I think installing qatengine.so directly in %{enginesdir} is the right choice.
Thanks for making that change.
On the licensing question, the guidelines answer this directly.
> The License: field refers to the licenses of the contents of the binary rpm.
I confirmed that the rpm build worked with the GPLv2 and BSD/GPLv2 code deleted
during %prep, so you are correct to set the field to just BSD and OpenSSL.
However, your license breakdown comment is insufficient. It needs to be clear
which files are under which licenses, and furthermore should explain the
situation with some of the unused code being under different licenses. This
will prevent future packagers from "fixing" the license field incorrectly. I
suggest:
# Most of the source code is BSD, with the following exceptions:
# - e_qat.txt, e_qat_err.c, and e_qat_err.h are OpenSSL
# - qat/config/* are (BSD or GPLv2), but are not used during compilation
# - qat_contig_mem/* are GPLv2, but are not used during compilation
Once the license breakdown comment is fixed, I think this package will be ready
to be approved.
--
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
