Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 438138
Review Request: tzdata-java - Time zone data for Java language
Last modified: 2008-04-08 06:08:27 EDT
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/lkundrak/SPECS/tzdata-java.spec
Description: Time zone data for Java language
Compiled time zone data files for use with Java
This package just makes sense for EPEL, so that we can get OpenJDK there.
It is superseded by subpackage of tzdata in Fedora, so will probably not live
longer than until next major RHEL release.
So from some point of view, it just just a hack.
This package's content is completely euqal to tzdata-java from Rawhide.
javazic.tar.gz -- no source URL for that. The same with tzdata package. Google
for its origin :) Java ZIC was not yet officially released in a polished and
packaged form yer.
General ugliness (replacing sun. with rht., etc.), shared with tzdata package :o)
This hack looks clean. Lubomir explained to me the Java warnings, however as
this is not permanent package and will vanish after RHEL6 release I don't see
any problem with this.
New Package CVS Request
Package Name: tzdata-java
Short Description: Time zone data for Java language
Branches: EL-4 EL-5
Cvsextras Commits: yes
Is the License tag right here? The main 'tzdata' package which uses the same
upstream as this has a different tag...
Also, can you check and make sure this conforms to the just approved java
Per IRC conversation with Lubomir, the main tzdata package has an incorrect
license tag, and he's going to file a bug on it.
Well, when I did the merge review for tzdata we talked about the license;
perhaps someone could let me know what is incorrect about the discussion in bug
226509. Bottom line: there is LGPL code in the source package but that code is
only used in building and none of it is present in the binary package; all
that's left is public domain data. Since the License: tag refers only to the
final binary package, that should be correct.
(In reply to comment #6)
> Since the License: tag refers only to the
> final binary package, that should be correct.
Does it? The source rpm packages also contain this license tag, and the indeed
don't contain only public domain code. Is that rule documented somewhere?
Please see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines
The License: field refers to the licenses of the contents of the binary rpm.
When in doubt, ask.
Jason: Thanks, fixed.
Imported and built, Thanks Marek, Thanks Kevin.