https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2168929
--- Comment #4 from Daiki Ueno <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Dmitry Belyavskiy from comment #2) > https://dbelyavs.fedorapeople.org/liboqs-0.7.2-1.fc36.src.rpm is updated srpm > https://dbelyavs.fedorapeople.org/liboqs.spec is updated spec > > (In reply to Daiki Ueno from comment #1) > > Notable issues: > > > > - Afaik -devel package shouldn't contain *.so.2 (but .so only) > Not sure but it can be done if you insist I think this should be done, otherwise rebuilding dependent packages upon soname bump will be difficult. The suggestion is: - the main package owns %{_libdir}/liboqs.so.2 and %{_libdir}/liboqs.so.0.7.2 (the actual SONAME according to readelf is liboqs.so.2) - the devel package owns %{_libdir}/liboqs.so > > - Multiple licenses are found; express them in "License:" with "AND" or add > > justfication > Done Good to use SPDX license identifiers for a new package; see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 Currently it says: "License: MIT and Apache 2.0 and BSD 3-Clause and CC0-1.0 and Unlicense" which is not recognized: $ license-validate -v "MIT and Apache 2.0 and BSD 3-Clause and CC0-1.0 and Unlicense" Not a valid license string This seems to be acceptable: $ license-validate -v "MIT AND Apache-2.0 AND BSD-3-Clause AND CC0-1.0 AND Unlicense" Approved license -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2168929 _______________________________________________ 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://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
