Spec URL: https://kalev.fedorapeople.org/rust-gtk-macros.spec SRPM URL: https://kalev.fedorapeople.org/rust-gtk-macros-0.3.0-1.fc38.src.rpm Description: Few macros to make gtk-rs development more convenient. Fedora Account System Username: kalev Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=94840946
Note that this is a re-review request as the package was retired from Fedora a year ago due to nothing depending on it any more.
Oh oh, a GPLv3 project without a license file, that's not good. Looks like the upstream project hasn't been touched in a while, but Felix seems to be still active in the GNOME community - maybe you know how to reach out to him concerning issue#1 and possibly also issue#2?
Hi Fabio, Thanks for taking the review and sorry for the slow response! (In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #2) > Oh oh, a GPLv3 project without a license file, that's not good. Looks like > the upstream project hasn't been touched in a while, but Felix seems to be > still active in the GNOME community - maybe you know how to reach out to him > concerning issue#1 and possibly also issue#2? Why a GPLv3 project without a license file specifically not good? Is it one of the licenses where it says that the license text must be distributed along with the source? I couldn't find anything that says so in the license text, but it's a fairly long text and I may have missed it. Sure, I can try to reach out to Felix and other rust people that are involved in the project. Is the missing license text a blocker for the Fedora package?
No problem, I was just going through review tickets I'm associated with and updated them all (and made sure none of them were waiting for *me*!) If I understand correctly, yes, including a copy of the license text is a requirement: > 4. Conveying Verbatim Copies. > > You may convey verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you > receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and > appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice; > keep intact all notices stating that this License and any > non-permissive terms added in accord with section 7 apply to the code; > keep intact all notices of the absence of any warranty; and give all > recipients a copy of this License along with the Program. I find this website very useful for things like these: https://choosealicense.com/licenses/gpl-3.0/ (in particular, the "bullet point" summary of the license terms at the top). > Is the missing license text a blocker for the Fedora package? I think so. But I'm not sure how to handle the case where upstream states that they publish code under GPL-3.0 but they *themselves* don't include a copy of the license text ... I don't think RMS thought of this case :D
Oh, that link is super helpful, thanks! I think I agree with your interpretation. Let me try to get in touch with upstream first before adding the license text downstream.
OK, I talked to upstream and the conclusion was that projects should stop using gtk-macros. I was packaging it for loupe and loupe just dropped the dependency (https://gitlab.gnome.org/Incubator/loupe/-/commit/8b3cfd000af0ac7cefc46dd8e8d0e90a076af788) so there is no need for me to package it any more. Let's just close this :) Thanks, Fabio!