From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:37556) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gnpd9-0007kc-Fl for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sun, 27 Jan 2019 13:58:08 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gnpd7-0005M2-5O for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sun, 27 Jan 2019 13:58:07 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:48681) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gnpd3-0005Jw-Rt for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sun, 27 Jan 2019 13:58:05 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1gnpd3-0006ae-PP for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sun, 27 Jan 2019 13:58:01 -0500 Subject: [bug#34222] [PATCH 04/15] gnu: Add ruby-racc. Resent-Message-ID: References: <87y376ghl0.fsf@cbaines.net> <20190127170820.28937-1-mail@cbaines.net> <20190127170820.28937-4-mail@cbaines.net> <871s4yt3iv.fsf@elephly.net> From: Christopher Baines In-reply-to: <871s4yt3iv.fsf@elephly.net> Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2019 18:57:13 +0000 Message-ID: <87lg36gc8m.fsf@cbaines.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" To: Ricardo Wurmus Cc: 34222@debbugs.gnu.org --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ricardo Wurmus writes: > Christopher Baines writes: > >> Required for ruby-ast and ruby-parser. >> >> * gnu/packages/ruby.scm (ruby-racc): New variable. > [=E2=80=A6] >> + (license license:expat))) > > On the website it says that the license is =E2=80=9CLGPL=E2=80=9D (no ver= sion is > provided). Could you please confirm the license? Indeed, the metadata in the gem is wrong. The information on the license is a bit sparse. LGPL 2.1 is included in the sources, and there is one file which references this in the header. The published gem doesn't come from the original author, so I'm guessing the default in the gemspec simply wasn't changed. --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQKTBAEBCgB9FiEEPonu50WOcg2XVOCyXiijOwuE9XcFAlxN/wlfFIAAAAAALgAo aXNzdWVyLWZwckBub3RhdGlvbnMub3BlbnBncC5maWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldDNF ODlFRUU3NDU4RTcyMEQ5NzU0RTBCMjVFMjhBMzNCMEI4NEY1NzcACgkQXiijOwuE 9XdznhAAp46yfbnAc1+PmouvQRUbkvyraHB9rN/7RHa321OopfzW9CQvpyhJJPti lstZHw6JiNNBvUA5gbHCnlIdVh1osa6puSaa/SEgugUJ9ddzVB4bMy/PGltc+2m1 O5wVx08nVLP70Q2+7DDJMkIwQn8r/kuU2vZuJROOIdUXxPwUCtVuV/hVfZGXsP0c 8Lreq7ASURHJzRNiwXfJNzJJDPS6rfM/bSlKmr4mB7ehxfi2ve4gjuUzI2BUfMLT A6V+cgogYb1+/eS94a6itLKRwB+hhPAdlxL1GDDX/9w5tZxPFz2PfrNYCE9qoGXt 5thHwHPApGjALwOsfwD/KgoopnuGcU1AVVd7rG2X8uMTKOcdoH1iyzZpOgbjFY0F x15uKYdSrLQXh8iISm1ZHbjyiV+e+382GHTMI5KXa88VQxeM+6/maKdzLwxCT0gx 7rSrYYUuGJoWQqfRQmMPd8ggFbCs7qOZqgWtJDJaknAyb1Ac1I2zLBx0JPkJBw7/ PwbFNpgrLvjDSUCtn+5/voqsNxZ3XN/wjV/Sj5kqwgDtBDe1pxNy3d2z+XgD/Oki N7yI72x5j8EgoFgGzkJsywN7rWzGX4NxEE03nQcvA/A6MljQ2AqzBBzC5THujf4d Zt8CyF/+JTgM09ypn19xkvSPzzf5JFKraSnKg2JD2aHUhPU6CwA= =8qpl -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--