Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/lkundrak/SPECS/tzdata-java.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/lkundrak/mock-results/tzdata-java-2007k-0.1.el5.noarch/tzdata-java-2007k-0.1.el5.src.rpm mock: http://people.redhat.com/lkundrak/mock-results/tzdata-java-2007k-0.1.el5.noarch/ Description: Time zone data for Java language Compiled time zone data files for use with Java programming language. --- 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 It is superseded by subpackage of tzdata in Fedora, so will probably not live longer than until next major RHEL release.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. Problemetic points: 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. APPROVED.
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: tzdata-java Short Description: Time zone data for Java language Owners: lkundrak 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 guidelines?
Per IRC conversation with Lubomir, the main tzdata package has an incorrect license tag, and he's going to file a bug on it. cvs done.
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.