On Sat, 2024-07-20 at 13:10 +0100, Arif Ali wrote: > Another review would be awesome > > After Chris' comment on copyright file, I made more extensive changes to > that to be inline with the chngelog dates and various authors, hopefully > that would be better and sufficient per Debian policy, if not then any > guidance on that would be appreciated. > > The lrc checks and the related fixes are now a PR upstream [1]. If it is > preferred to bring this is a patch to the pkg, and refer to the Origin, > then happy to do that, and will upload a new one. > > Putting CI in place upstream, also brought in lrc issues for RPM .spec file > and the snapcraft.yaml, which don't have a preamble section for the License > and lrc sees them as GPL-2, but we define the license for the application > within these files. What would be advice on that? > > Also made further changes based on previous reviews. > > TiA > > [1] https://github.com/sosreport/sos/pull/3712
Hey Arif, Adding the 'or later' that I mentioned that would keep 'lrc' quiet is great and saves all that checking and possible questions by those not familiar with the package. The changes as part of the upstream MR can come in with a new sosreport release, no need to patch or add anything to your workload. The RPM spec and Snap yaml both inform of the package being GPL 2 or later and in the root directory, the license file is GPL 2 or later. This indicates that they fall under that license. I would not concern yourself any longer about those to be honest. Regards Phil -- "I play the game for the game’s own sake" Arthur Conan Doyle - The Adventure of the Bruce-Partington Plans -- Internet Relay Chat (IRC): kathenas Website: https://kathenas.org Instagram: https://instagram.com/kathenasorg/ Buy Me A Coffee: https://buymeacoffee.com/kathenasorg --
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
