https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2439304
Cristian Le <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|[email protected] |[email protected] --- Comment #5 from Cristian Le <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Antonio T. sagitter from comment #4) > > Hi Cristian > Hi Steve > > I think that, excepting all that is closely concerning to the packaging, > these issues should be discussed/resolved with upstream. > All i want to do here is to make as best as possible the RPM of the code > actually distributed. > I can't supersede upstream developers. Most of it is patchable on our side, and there were some references of the patches already proposed. If you get stuck on any of them, let me know and I'll find some time to write a quick patch. License should really get upstream to respond, but we can also make an executive decision to fix it for them since the state is rather clear. But to clarify, fixing the license **IS** a blocker for review. On your side the simplest course of action is to move the content of that COPYING and put the actual license text file in there instead. If the full license is included in all headers, that can be skipped, but I have not checked the sources in a while. > I did not understand if your changes have been already partially merged by > upstream. Not yet because upstream went silent on us again after that miraculous activity. @scivision might be interested in longer term maintenance, so I would pass the ball to them if they would be up for it. I did ping upstream again to try and get some response at least https://github.com/KarypisLab/GKlib/issues/56 > > Likely upstream should do a `find_package(PCRE)` instead and specify if they > > want PCRE2 > > `find_package(PCRE)` requires a PCRE CMake config file that does not exist; > or am i wrong? I should have said or equivalent. It has `.pc` file which can be used. For pcre2 it would be possible, but also it is not built with CMake: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2218125. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2439304 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202439304%23c5 -- _______________________________________________ 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://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/tickets/issues/new
