https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327071
--- Comment #2 from Michal Schmidt <mschm...@redhat.com> ---
> # This software is available to you under a choice of one of two
> # licenses. You may choose to be licensed under the terms of the GNU
> # General Public License (GPL) Version 2, available from the file
> # COPYING in the main directory of this source tree, or the
> # BSD license below:
> #
> # Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or
> # without modification, are permitted provided that the following
> # conditions are met:
> #
> # - Redistributions of source code must retain the above
> # copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following
> # disclaimer.
> #
> # - Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above
> # copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following
> # disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials
> # provided with the distribution.
> #
> # THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND,
> # EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF
> # MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND
> # NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS
> # BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN
> # ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN
> # CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
> # SOFTWARE.
Hm, what's with these license headers in spec files lately?
Most Fedora spec files do not have them, because they're implicitly covered
by the MIT license as specified in the Fedora contributor's agreement.
Oh I see. The spec file comes from the upstream tarball.
It's strange that they put in this license header, but did not add any
copyright header (who's the author? copyright holder? copyright
date?)
> Name: libusnic_verbs
OK, the name follows the upstream name. On the other hand, with the "_verbs"
suffix it stands out like a sore thumb among other libibverbs plugins.
Whatever, I don't mind.
> Version: 2.0.1
> Release: 1%{?dist}
> Summary: No-op libibverbs driver for the Cisco usNIC device
> License: GPLv2 or BSD
> Url: http://cisco.com/
https://github.com/cisco/libusnic_verbs would be a more useful URL.
> Source0:
> https://github.com/cisco/%{name}/releases/download/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
> BuildRequires: libibverbs-devel >= 1.2.0
> ExcludeArch: s390 s390x
libibverbs itself has only "ExcludeArch: s390". Since libusnic_verbs is such
a simple dummy driver, it would most likely build fine on s390x.
Do you want to add?:
Provides: libibverbs-driver.%{_arch}
> %description
> This is a dummy plugin for libibverbs for Cisco usNIC devices.
>
> It's only purpose in life is to prevent libibverbs from noticing /sys
s/It's/Its/ (a possessive, not contraction)
> entries for Cisco usNIC devices and emitting a stderr warning that it
> cannot find a userspace plugin to support that device.
>
> Cisco does not support the userspace Verbs API for accessing its usNIC
> devices. The Libfabric API is provided for accessing Cisco usNIC
> functionality (see http://libfabric.org/).
>
> %prep
> %setup -q
>
> %build
> %configure
> make %{?_smp_mflags}
>
> %install
> %{make_install}
> # remove unpackaged files from the buildroot
> rm -f %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/*.la %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/libusnic_verbs.so
>
> %files
> # All files are licensed in GPLv2.
Delete this comment. Is the software not dual-licensed GPLv2 / BSD?
> %{_libdir}/libusnic_verbs-rdmav2.so
> %{_sysconfdir}/libibverbs.d/usnic.driver
> %doc AUTHORS ChangeLog VERSION
> %license LICENSE
The LICENSE file refers to a file called COPYING, which should contain the
complete text of GPLv2. COPYING is missing in upstream. Please tell
upstream to add it.
> %changelog
> * Thu Apr 14 2016 Honggang Li <ho...@redhat.com> - 2.0.1-1
> - Import libusnic_verbs for Fedora.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
