On 04. 10. 22 1:18, Miro Hrončok wrote:
And how is this change related to:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rpmlint/c/2beb19345e6644cb1b5ee8092b8533c8984cd21c?branch=rawhide
I was unaware of this change at all.
Tom, should rpmlint ditch that file instead and Require
Todd,
> Sergey Mende wrote:
>
> Ahh, that affects spec files which use %forgeautosetup and
> have patches, right? They get `patch-not-applied` warnings.
>
> It may be worth asking upstream. Such a trivial adjustment¹
> to the regex might be acceptable. If not, perhaps they'll
> have a good
Hi,
Sergey Mende wrote:
>> Mildly related, I've been working on getting rpmlint updated
>> to 2.3.0 and now 2.4.0. I filed a PR to get comments from
>> other rpmlint maintainers and (hopefully) catch any bugs I
>> may have introduced:
>>
>>
Hi Todd,
> Mildly related, I've been working on getting rpmlint updated
> to 2.3.0 and now 2.4.0. I filed a PR to get comments from
> other rpmlint maintainers and (hopefully) catch any bugs I
> may have introduced:
>
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rpmlint/pull-request/27
A bit off
Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 03. 10. 22 12:09, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>> And how is this change related to:
>>
>> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rpmlint/c/2beb19345e6644cb1b5ee8092b8533c8984cd21c?branch=rawhide
>
> I was unaware of this change at all.
>
> Tom, should rpmlint ditch that file instead
On 03. 10. 22 12:09, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 29. 09. 22 v 12:28 Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
On 08. 09. 22 12:44, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
* We have MR [2] which creates the data for rpmlint. Again, this is not
merged and not yet in Fedora.
The rpmlint-fedora-license-data package is now available in
Dne 29. 09. 22 v 12:28 Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
On 08. 09. 22 12:44, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
* We have MR [2] which creates the data for rpmlint. Again, this is
not merged and not yet in Fedora.
The rpmlint-fedora-license-data package is now available in Fedora. It
Supplements rpmlint.
On 08. 09. 22 12:44, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
* We have MR [2] which creates the data for rpmlint. Again, this is not merged
and not yet in Fedora.
The rpmlint-fedora-license-data package is now available in Fedora. It
Supplements rpmlint.
Install it to "teach" rpmlint about valid SPDX license
On 08. 09. 22 17:18, Steven A. Falco wrote:
Can one simply convert to the new SPDX license identifier for all active Fedora
releases, i.e. F35 through Rawhide?
Yes, this was exactly the outcome of the discussion.
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
On 9/8/22 06:44 AM, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
Quick heads up where we are:
I had been following this discussion, and I vaguely remember that there was
talk of it having to be conditional, perhaps with a macro.
Has all that now been resolved? Can one simply convert to the new SPDX license
Quick heads up where we are:
* people started voluntary migrating the identifiers to SPDX. When the license is not on our list, you can open issue or
even merge request here:
https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data
Richard and Jilayne are doing awesome work reviewing the license
On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 10:08 PM Otto Urpelainen wrote:
> Neal's proposal seems simple and safe.
Except that it conflicts with another of the
proposal authors, who claims one will be
required to use %if-%else logic.
Limitations in tooling to not report violations
of the intention of the
Neal Gompa kirjoitti 18.5.2022 klo 19.40:
On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 12:27 PM Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 18. 05. 22 v 15:51 David Cantrell napsal(a):
On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 02:51:33PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 17. 05. 22 21:49, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 17. 05. 22 17:06, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 12:27 PM Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
>
> Dne 18. 05. 22 v 15:51 David Cantrell napsal(a):
> > On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 02:51:33PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> >> On 17. 05. 22 21:49, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> >>> On 17. 05. 22 17:06, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Dne 17. 05. 22 v 16:59
Dne 18. 05. 22 v 15:51 David Cantrell napsal(a):
On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 02:51:33PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 17. 05. 22 21:49, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 17. 05. 22 17:06, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
Dne 17. 05. 22 v 16:59 Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
Thanks for the explanation. Could this be
On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 02:51:33PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 17. 05. 22 21:49, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > On 17. 05. 22 17:06, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> > > Dne 17. 05. 22 v 16:59 Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
> > > > Thanks for the explanation. Could this be explicitly written in
> > > > the change
On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 03:30:43PM -0400, Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
> On 5/17/22 14:35, David Cantrell wrote:
> > I think a better thing to do would be to use a scanner like scancode[1]
> > to
> > check the source tree in question and then construct a License expression
> > for
> > the spec file
On 17. 05. 22 21:49, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 17. 05. 22 17:06, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
Dne 17. 05. 22 v 16:59 Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
Thanks for the explanation. Could this be explicitly written in the change
proposal?
Yes. I will amend the proposal with FAQ posted in this thread.
Also, when
V Tue, May 17, 2022 at 05:06:44PM +0200, Miroslav Suchý napsal(a):
> Dne 17. 05. 22 v 16:59 Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
> > Also, when you say "after F38 branching", does that mean it will not be
> > allowed in f35, f36 and f37 branches?
>
> No. Old branches i.e. f35, f36 and f37 will keep using the
Maxwell G via devel writes:
> On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 10:06:44 AM CDT Miroslav Suchý wrote:
>> > Do we need to %if-%else it in the spec file? I recall some discussion
>> > about this on the legal list, but I see no
>> > guidelines proposed here.
>>
>> If you maintain one spec for all
On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 9:02:11 AM CDT Ben Cotton wrote:
> == Summary ==
> Transition from Fedora's short name of licenses to standardized
> [https://spdx.org/licenses/SPDXlicense]
> [https://spdx.dev/specifications/formula].
I just noticed that both of these links are dead...
--
Thanks,
On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 7:50 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
> Does that make sense?
Yes, and a great idea.
That would definitely work well for me (as long
as the spdx macro was backported to all the
usual suspects).
___
devel mailing list --
On 17. 05. 22 17:06, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
Dne 17. 05. 22 v 16:59 Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
Thanks for the explanation. Could this be explicitly written in the change
proposal?
Yes. I will amend the proposal with FAQ posted in this thread.
Also, when you say "after F38 branching", does that
On 5/17/22 14:35, David Cantrell wrote:
I think a better thing to do would be to use a scanner like
scancode[1] to
check the source tree in question and then construct a License expression for
the spec file from its results. In many cases it will be the same as what we
have in the spec file,
On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 05:46:25PM +, Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
> On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 2:41 PM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
> wrote:
>
> > But I think this change also requires automatic conversion of all
> > available SPECs, because manual conversion will take years.
>
> Automating where
On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 3:07 PM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> > Do we need to %if-%else it in the spec file? I recall some discussion about
> > this on the legal list, but I see no
> > guidelines proposed here.
>
> If you maintain one spec for all branches then you will need %if-%else. And
> yes, it
On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 2:41 PM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
wrote:
> But I think this change also requires automatic conversion of all
> available SPECs, because manual conversion will take years.
Automating where possible (the existing license has a
one-to-one mapping) is desirable, but
On 17/05/2022 17:06, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
No. Old branches i.e. f35, f36 and f37 will keep using the old short
names. No change there. The same for epel9-.
Then most maintainers will continue to use the old names. I want my Git
history to be linear.
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly Zaitsev
On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 10:06:44 AM CDT Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> > Do we need to %if-%else it in the spec file? I recall some discussion about
> > this on the legal list, but I see no
> > guidelines proposed here.
>
> If you maintain one spec for all branches then you will need %if-%else. And
Ignoring the question (for now) of whether SPDX identifiers will be
allowed in f37 and older branches, can you clarify “after F38 branching”?
If the Change is targeting F38, then it seems like SPDX identifiers
should be allowed in Rawhide after what I think would generally be
called “F37
On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 10:21:39 AM CDT Miro Hrončok wrote:
> That includes both MIT and BSD, right?
>
Yes. I believe LGPLv2(+) is also ambiguous, because SPDX differentiates between
2.0 and 2.1. There may be others.
--
Thanks,
Maxwell G (@gotmax23)
Pronouns: He/Him/His
signature.asc
On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 11:22 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> On 17. 05. 22 17:19, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 11:11 AM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> >>
> >> Dne 17. 05. 22 v 17:01 Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
> >>>
> >>> Is this going to be part of phase 1? Could you please explicitly say
On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 11:19 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> On 17. 05. 22 17:08, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 11:02 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
> >>
> >> On 17. 05. 22 16:52, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> >>> Dne 17. 05. 22 v 16:18 Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
> So, is it actually allowed to
On 17. 05. 22 17:19, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 11:11 AM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
Dne 17. 05. 22 v 17:01 Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
Is this going to be part of phase 1? Could you please explicitly say that in
the change proposal?
No, it is not part of phase 1. Sorry for the
On 17. 05. 22 17:06, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
Dne 17. 05. 22 v 16:59 Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
Thanks for the explanation. Could this be explicitly written in the change
proposal?
Yes. I will amend the proposal with FAQ posted in this thread.
Awesome!
Also, when you say "after F38 branching",
On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 11:11 AM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
>
> Dne 17. 05. 22 v 17:01 Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
> >
> > Is this going to be part of phase 1? Could you please explicitly say that
> > in the change proposal?
>
> No, it is not part of phase 1. Sorry for the confusion. I meant, yes we will
On 17. 05. 22 17:08, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 11:02 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 17. 05. 22 16:52, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
Dne 17. 05. 22 v 16:18 Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
So, is it actually allowed to use SPDX identifiers when this phase is
activated, or not?
SPDX identifiers
Dne 17. 05. 22 v 17:01 Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
Is this going to be part of phase 1? Could you please explicitly say that in
the change proposal?
No, it is not part of phase 1. Sorry for the confusion. I meant, yes we will do the automatic conversion one day. But
according to current plan,
On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 11:02 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> On 17. 05. 22 16:52, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> > Dne 17. 05. 22 v 16:18 Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
> >> So, is it actually allowed to use SPDX identifiers when this phase is
> >> activated, or not?
> >
> > SPDX identifiers will be allowed when
Dne 17. 05. 22 v 16:59 Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
Thanks for the explanation. Could this be explicitly written in the change proposal?
Yes. I will amend the proposal with FAQ posted in this thread.
Also, when you say "after F38 branching", does that mean it will not be allowed in f35, f36 and
On 17. 05. 22 16:52, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
Dne 17. 05. 22 v 16:18 Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
So, is it actually allowed to use SPDX identifiers when this phase is
activated, or not?
SPDX identifiers will be allowed when all these conditions will be met:
* Change approved by FESCO
* after F38
On 17. 05. 22 16:54, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
Dne 17. 05. 22 v 16:38 Vitaly Zaitsev via devel napsal(a):
But I think this change also requires automatic conversion of all available
SPECs, because manual conversion will take years.
We will do automatic conversion (openning PR) when the
Dne 17. 05. 22 v 16:38 Vitaly Zaitsev via devel napsal(a):
But I think this change also requires automatic conversion of all available SPECs, because manual conversion will take
years.
We will do automatic conversion (openning PR) when the conversion can be done automatically. But there are
Dne 17. 05. 22 v 16:18 Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
So, is it actually allowed to use SPDX identifiers when this phase is activated, or not?
SPDX identifiers will be allowed when all these conditions will be met:
* Change approved by FESCO
* after F38 branching
* documentation with conversion
On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 9:02:11 AM CDT Ben Cotton wrote:
> In this phase, we want to provide documentation and tooling to allow
> maintainers to begin using SPDX license ids instead of the old Fedora
> short names. This move is opt-in.
+1 for this change. I am not a fan of having to remember
On 17/05/2022 16:02, Ben Cotton wrote:
This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes
process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive
community feedback. This proposal will only be implemented if approved
by the Fedora Engineering Steering Committee.
+1 for
On 17. 05. 22 16:02, Ben Cotton wrote:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1
This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes
process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive
community feedback. This proposal will only be implemented if
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1
This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes
process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive
community feedback. This proposal will only be implemented if approved
by the Fedora Engineering Steering
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1
This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes
process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive
community feedback. This proposal will only be implemented if approved
by the Fedora Engineering Steering
49 matches
Mail list logo
