I recently attempted to package 3.2.13 for Fedora/EPEL and fater building was informed that several of the license files contain an incorrect address for FSF. Who needs notified to correct this? boblfoot.fedorapeople.org/vassa … vassal.txt
Thus spake BobLfoot via messages:
I recently attempted to package 3.2.13 for Fedora/EPEL and fater
building was informed that several of the license files contain an
incorrect address for FSF. Who needs notified to correct this?
boblfoot.fedorapeople.org/vassa … vassal.txt[1]
I’m someone who could correct it… except that none of the licelse
files listed are ours—they’re all ones for our dependencies, which
I copied from our dependencies. Is the suggestion really to alter
the license files provided by our dependencies? That seems wrong to
me.
–
J.
As I understand things and I am on a learning curve here as well. The rpmlint program which examines packaged files has checked the FSF addresses included in the highlighted license files and found them to be invalid URLs. The procedure for me as a Fedora/EPEL Packager is to “bounce” that information Upstream. It is a warning level message not an error so it prevents nothing from moving forward. Likewise since these are from dependancies not your own the only thng I would expect you would do is pass the information to the upstream dependancy maintainer and when and if they upgrade the license then include it.
Thus spake BobLfoot via messages:
As I understand things and I am on a learning curve here as well. The
rpmlint program which examines packaged files has checked the FSF
addresses included in the highlighted license files and found them to be
invalid URLs. The procedure for me as a Fedora/EPEL Packager is to
“bounce” that information Upstream. It is a warning level message not
an error so it prevents nothing from moving forward. Likewise since
these are from dependancies not your own the only thng I would expect
you would do is pass the information to the upstream dependancy
maintainer and when and if they upgrade the license then include it.
The problem we’re likely to encounter with passing any of this upstream
is that in many cases, we’re using the last Java 5-compatible version of
our dependencies. It’s likely that our dependencies will have already
fixed the problem, but in versions of theirs which are no longer usable
by us.
We still have quite some number of users on old Macs for which there’s
nothing newer than Java 5. I want to maintain Java 5 compatibility
through the last 3.2 release in order to avoid stranding those users.
After that, with V4, that problem will go away as we won’t be using
Java anymore.
–
J.