Dne 27. 09. 24 v 4:27 odp. Karolina Surma napsal(a):
I second Ben's findings, all of my packages have been migrated with a commit message saying "Review the License tag
according to the SPDX standard" and with an added "# SPDX" comment if there was no change of the string. The
automation should
Dne 27. 09. 24 v 4:01 odp. Ben Beasley napsal(a):
The list of packages without SPDX, packages-without-spdx-final-maintainers.txt, seems suspicious. It has quite a few
packages I maintain that seem perfectly fine to me.
NiaAML-GUI has:
# SPDX
License: MIT
and a commit/ch
Hot news:
- I am going through "neither Callaway nor SPDX" license formulas. I submitted dozens PR for your packages. And beside
obvious typos or partial conversion I see cases where maintainers use SPDX id of license. This is not enough the license
id must have SPDX id **and** must be on fedor
If you maintain a package from PyPI, I wanted to give you a heads-up. It took me two hours to resolve this issue today
as it started with "why Packit did not created new PR when upstream has new version".
And quick check shows that about one thousand packages may be affected.
It seems that PyPI
In Mock upstream we are right not discussing
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/mock/pull/1462
Here is the summary:
> Config files that uses DNF now contains `tsflags=nodocs` that tells RPM to not
> install documentation files.
> This results to smaller buildroot. For fedora-rawhide, wi
Dne 20. 09. 24 v 2:53 dop. Orion Poplawski napsal(a):
I'm planning on retiring truth soon unless someone wants to take it over.
I'm not aware of anything that needs it.
We should not name packages like that. Reading this made me sad. And it took me
a while that you mean an RPM package.
--
M
I will start with the tidbit first today. Why "Almost There Edition"? You can
find that in
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QVMEzXWML-6_Mrlln02axFAaRKCQ8zE807rpCjus-8s/edit?gid=0#gid=0
we are done from 81%. But I will offer different view: 5970 packages are not converted yet. But out of
Dne 09. 09. 24 v 7:34 odp. Peter Robinson napsal(a):
Was there ever a resolution to this thread [1] around
LicenseRef-Callaway-Redistributable-no-modification-permitted in
particular for the linux-firmware package?
[1]https://www.spinics.net/lists/fedora-devel/msg316158.html
I understand that
Dne 09. 09. 24 v 4:21 odp. Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
But that is upstream stuff, isn't it?
It is "a format". Nothing stops us to use it aside of spec file. Or in comments in spec file. Just to find consensus
how to use it and put it guidelines. :)
--
Miroslav Suchy, RHCA
Red Hat, Manager, Pa
Dne 09. 09. 24 v 4:15 odp. Scott Talbert napsal(a):
On Fri, 6 Sep 2024, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
Bellow is list of packages that have licenses that are neither valid as
Callaway nor as SPDX. I.e. the license cannot be validated neither using
'license-validate' nor using 'license
Dne 06. 09. 24 v 8:43 odp. Kevin Fenzi napsal(a):
Can you do a updated run so we can see how many are left after that
change?
Here is updated list. And I already started opening PR for packages at src.fedoraproject.org because each case is
special and PR is likely the best way. This list is ba
Dne 09. 09. 24 v 3:33 odp. Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
Neat. This would allow to slap in some comments, right? E.g:
~~~
License: %{shrink:
%dnl src/*.*
MIT AND
BSL-1.0 AND %dnl doc/*.*
BSD-2-Clause AND
(Apache-2
Dne 08. 09. 24 v 3:54 odp. Barry napsal(a):
$ LC_ALL=C rpmspec -q --qf '%{license}\n' ruby.spec
error: ruby.spec: line 241: failed to load macro file
/home/msuchy/rpmbuild/SOURCES/macros.ruby
I have hit rslated issues like this in the past, rpmspec needs the rpm macro
dependencies to be instal
Dne 06. 09. 24 v 12:16 odp. Petr Pisar napsal(a):
$ rpmspec -q --qf '%{license}\n' perl-License-Syntax.spec
GPL-1.0-or-later OR Artistic-1.0-Perl
This is not as easy as I thought. While this works for simply packages using
%shrink:
$ rpmspec -q --qf '%{license}\n' rpm-specs/python-graph-tool.
Dne 06. 09. 24 v 8:43 odp. Kevin Fenzi napsal(a):
Can you do a updated run so we can see how many are left after that
change?
Yes. The analysis is already running. But it takes almost a day to finish.
--
Miroslav Suchy, RHCA
Red Hat, Manager, Packit and CPT, #brno, #fedora-buildsys
--
___
Dne 06. 09. 24 v 1:57 odp. Daniel P. Berrangé napsal(a):
I need a class again on how to do this... I remember years ago being told
we should try to come up with what the effective license is, so if the
We (owners of the change) are indeed considering doing workshops on how to identify license.
Dne 06. 09. 24 v 1:33 odp. Ben Beasley napsal(a):
Both python-graph-tool and python-llvmlite also use the %{shrink: …} macro in their spec files. You’ve demonstrated
how they can be validated correctly by first allowing RPM to form the License expression in a single line, rather than
grepping th
Dne 06. 09. 24 v 1:08 odp. Ben Beasley napsal(a):
There are still packages in this list that appear to have valid license expressions, but aren’t amenable to spec-file
grepping because they use the %shrink macro to split long license expressions across multiple lines. Looking at this list:
mu
Dne 06. 09. 24 v 12:16 odp. Petr Pisar napsal(a):
This package looks good for me. Last change in a License tag was on 2022-12-20
and current value "GPL-1.0-or-later OR Artistic-1.0-Perl" is valid.
Indeed.
Did you simply grep spec files instead of letting RPM to parse them?
I was about to sa
Dne 06. 09. 24 v 12:55 odp. Artur Frenszek-Iwicki napsal(a):
Bah, silly mistake on my part. This was "LGPLv2+", so should be
"LGPL-2.0-or-later".
Yes. You are not alone. There is lot of such typos.
But there is another problem.
LGPL-2.0-or-later
is allowed license, but
LGPL-2.0-or-later
Dne 06. 09. 24 v 10:29 dop. Petr Pisar napsal(a):
I'm not sure it was a systemic mistake or
just the two packages were special.
Very likely a bug in my quick'n'dirty script. :)
--
Miroslav Suchy, RHCA
Red Hat, Manager, Packit and CPT, #brno, #fedora-buildsys
--
___
Bellow is list of packages that have licenses that are neither valid as Callaway nor as SPDX. I.e. the license cannot be
validated neither using 'license-validate' nor using 'license-validate --old'.
Some examples I checked (random selection):
aldo.spec:
License: GPL-2.0-or-later AND GPL
Below is last 198 packages that has 1:1 mapping to SPDX id. But most of them
has some caveat.
My intention is to NOT run this through script to avoid some mistake, but
convert it manually in dist-git.
I plan to convert
* Public Domain to LicenseRef-Callaway-Public-Domain
* "Redistributable, n
Dne 28. 08. 24 v 11:53 dop. Miroslav Suchý napsal(a):
Here is the third and last batch of changes for 972 packages (perl-JSON-Create
to 0ad-data)
Done.
I am now running new check of all spec files to see what can be done next.
--
Miroslav Suchy, RHCA
Red Hat, Manager, Packit and CPT, #brno
Dne 02. 09. 24 v 12:20 odp. Miroslav Suchý napsal(a):
Do you want to make Fedora 41 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and
try to run:
dnf --releasever=41 --enablerepo=updates-testing --assumeno distro-sync
I hit
Problem 1: installed package compat-golang-github-shirou-gopsutil-3
Dne 03. 09. 24 v 11:20 dop. Artur Frenszek-Iwicki napsal(a):
Looking at the build history in koji, my builds ran on:
- buildhw-a64-03.iad2.fedoraproject.org
Are you able to reproduce the build failure in Copr? If yes, then you can ssh
there:
https://frostyx.cz/posts/ssh-access-to-copr-builder
Dne 02. 09. 24 v 7:52 odp. Michael Schwendt napsal(a):
Error:
Problem 1: package wxGTK3-3.0.5.1-10.fc38.x86_64 from @System requires
libtiff.so.5()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
The wxGTK3 package does not exist anymore in Fedora 39 and later.
File dead.package tells it'
Dne 25. 08. 24 v 9:17 dop. Miroslav Suchý napsal(a):
Here is the second batch of changes for 1000 packages
(golang-github-danwakefield-fnmatch to perl-Image-Xbm)
Git committed and pushed.
--
Miroslav Suchy, RHCA
Red Hat, Manager, Packit and CPT, #brno, #fedora-buildsys
Do you want to make Fedora 41 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and
try to run:
dnf --releasever=41 --enablerepo=updates-testing --assumeno distro-sync
This command does not replace `dnf system-upgrade`, but it will reveal
potential problems.
You may also run `dnf upgrade` before run
Dne 31. 08. 24 v 1:09 odp. Michael Schwendt napsal(a):
On Sat, 31 Aug 2024 12:42:48 +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
List by package maintainers is here
https://pagure.io/copr/license-validate/blob/main/f/packages-without-spdx-final-maintainers.txt
Well, both "audacious" and "au
Hot news:
* Migration of all remaining licenses to LicenseRef-Callaway-* is in progress. Note that while such IDs are valid SPDX
identifiers, it is not accepted license for Fedora. And it is reported as not valid. I will continue to report such
licenses as "not converted".
* Due the conversio
Dne 29. 08. 24 v 1:10 odp. Pavel Cahyna napsal(a):
Hello,
On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 10:55:13AM +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
Hot news:
SPDX v3 has been published. The biggest change for us is that license
expression allows lowercase operators (and, or, with). This got into the
specification
Dne 28. 08. 24 v 1:09 odp. Ian McInerney via devel napsal(a):
Please exclude zulucrypt. I am in the process of doing the conversion
during my update to the newest upstream version, but it is waiting on
two
things:https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues/561,https://gitlab.com
Dne 28. 08. 24 v 12:38 odp. Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
Please exclude pythran:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pythran/pull-request/31
Ack. Excluded. (But still included in the files below)
Also, could you please send a plain list of packages you plan to change, so I can run it trough
fin
Here is the third and last batch of changes for 972 packages (perl-JSON-Create
to 0ad-data)
https://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/rest-of-callaway-batch3.diff
Shorten version without the context is here:
https://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/rest-of-callaway-batch3-short-diff.txt
I will appreciate a re
Dne 21. 08. 24 v 10:58 dop. Miroslav Suchý napsal(a):
I incorporated the feedback I got on my email about converting all remaining packages and here is full diff of first
500 packages (a-golang-github-cyberdelia-metrics-graphite):
This is done.
Note for maintainers - while LicenseRef-Callaway
Dne 26. 08. 24 v 4:21 odp. Richard Fontana napsal(a):
It seems you are incorrectly converting from "Redistributable, no
modification permitted" to
"LicenseRef-Callaway-Freely-redistributable-no-modification-permitted"
instead of "LicenseRef-Callaway-Redistributable-no-modification-permitted".
I t
Dne 26. 08. 24 v 8:50 odp. David Cantrell napsal(a):
Probably. A lot of the data files are mapped from the dist tag. Any time a new dist tag is created, that is not
automatically created in rpminspect-data-fedora. The owner of the data has to do that. That's been entirely manual on
my part so
Dne 25. 08. 24 v 5:26 odp. Fabio Valentini napsal(a):
The parsec-tool conversion looks a bit strange.
It's a Rust package, its License string should be trivially
constructible from SPDX identifiers.
It looks like it hasn't been updated in a while though, so it might
predate the switch of defaults
Dne 25. 08. 24 v 1:20 odp. Alexander Ploumistos napsal(a):
Hello Miroslav,
I have opened issue #430 about inchi's license
https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues/430 for the record
, wasn't the tag going
to be "LicenseRef-IUPAC-InChI-Trust"?
Yes and no.
Yes, the packa
Here is the second batch of changes for 1000 packages
(golang-github-danwakefield-fnmatch to perl-Image-Xbm)
https://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/rest-of-callaway-batch2-normal-diff.txt
Shorten version without the context is here:
https://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/rest-of-callaway-batch2-small-diff
I incorporated the feedback I got on my email about converting all remaining packages and here is full diff of first 500
packages (a-golang-github-cyberdelia-metrics-graphite):
https://k00.fr/ywn3nz8h
Shorten version without the context is here:
https://k00.fr/x1aii7ub
I will appreciate anoth
Dne 18. 08. 24 v 6:50 dop. Richard Fontana napsal(a):
As noted by Ben, in this case you can optionally simplify it to:
Slightly side note for anyone wanting to play with expressions:
There is a library `license-expression` that allows you to operate with boolean logic of SPDX expressions. And
Dne 17. 08. 24 v 8:02 odp. Dridi Boukelmoune napsal(a):
I ended up with the following license tag that I moved to SPDX as part
of the incoming update:
License: GPL-2.0-only AND MIT AND (GPL-2.0-only OR MIT)
I feel like I could technically factor it to just "GPL-2.0-only AND
MIT" because pi
Hot news:
* Almost all trivial conversion has been done. Only 208 "trivial" cases remains. I will not continue converting them to
SPDX counterpart as there are various caveats hidden there. I will go over the remaining cases one by one. But it is
likely that most of them will be converted to so
Dne 08. 08. 24 v 6:05 dop. Richard Fontana napsal(a):
Looks like you are using `License-Callaway-` when it should be
`LicenseRef-Callaway-`.
Good catch. Fixing.
--
Miroslav Suchy, RHCA
Red Hat, Manager, Packit and CPT, #brno, #fedora-buildsys
--
___
Dne 08. 08. 24 v 1:17 dop. Leigh Scott napsal(a):
cjs should be treated the same as gjs, it's the same code with renamed files,
the licences haven't been changed.
Feel free to change it. You are the maintainer of the package you know it
better. This is still the preferred way.
We have 5k of
Dne 07. 08. 24 v 11:21 odp. Leigh Scott napsal(a):
gjs
-License:MIT and (MPLv1.1 or GPLv2+ or LGPLv2+)
+# modules/esm/_encoding/util.js and few
other things are MIT
+# modules/script/tweener/equatio
Dne 07. 08. 24 v 9:30 odp. Miroslav Suchý napsal(a):
3) I first thought that this: atril
- GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ and MIT
+ GPL-2.0-or-later AND License-Callaway-LGPLv2+ AND License-Callaway-MIT
needs different handling, but then I realized it is likely what we want. It converts GPLv2+ to only
All packages with licenses that has 1:1 counterpart in SPDX were converted. What is remaining are licenses that cannot
be converted to SPDX automatically. E.g. BSD in Callaway can be converted to BSD-2-Clause or BSD-3-Clause (and several
others).
We have the agreement (and FESCO decision [1]) t
Dne 31. 07. 24 v 8:51 odp. Miroslav Suchý napsal(a):
Oh never mind, that is not what you're doing. Still, I am concerned
about any mass replacement of Callaway "with exceptions", since that
could refer to anything, or did you handle this on a
package-by-package basis?
Good point
Dne 30. 07. 24 v 6:40 odp. Miroslav Suchý napsal(a):
I am going to do the mass change of the licenses from "GPL+ or Artistic" to
"GPL-1.0-or-later OR Artistic-1.0-Perl"
The proposed diff is here https://k00.fr/1o80qex2
Done
--
Miroslav Suchy, RHCA
Red Hat, Manager, P
Dne 31. 07. 24 v 11:50 odp. Michal Ambroz napsal(a):
*# Bug 2246704 - Review Request: python-xlrd2 - Library to extract data from Microsoft Excel legacy spreadsheet files
*(xls)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2246704
I take this.
If you can do review of
https://bugzilla.redhat
Hot news:
* Big batch of GPL families was mass converted.
* Sent email about packages with problems (licenses neither in SPDX nor in
Callaway format).
* Still on todo list: convert Perl licenses (already announced) and Public
Domain, UltraPermissive, and Firmware.
Two weeks ago we had:
*
Dne 31. 07. 24 v 6:57 odp. Richard Fontana napsal(a):
Oh never mind, that is not what you're doing. Still, I am concerned
about any mass replacement of Callaway "with exceptions", since that
could refer to anything, or did you handle this on a
package-by-package basis?
Good point. I will remove
Dne 31. 07. 24 v 11:14 dop. Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please check
How to reproduce this warning?
These lines
https://pagure.io/copr/license-validate/blob/main/f/packages-without-spdx-final.txt#_16
My script put it there whenever both:
$
Dne 31. 07. 24 v 11:16 dop. Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
I probably don't understand right the first one:
~~~
diff -Naur rpm-specs.orig/aces_container.spec rpm-specs/aces_container.spec
--- rpm-specs.orig/aces_container.spec 2024-07-18 04:00:12.0 +0200
+++ rpm-specs/aces_container.spec
Hi.
This is a batch of remaining licenses that allows 1:1 conversion [*]. It includes leftovers from previous migrations,
compound formulas and rarely used licenses.
The proposed diff is here https://k00.fr/5i348p12
Affected packages: https://k00.fr/zszrcmgr
Unless somebody stop me, I will
Dne 30. 07. 24 v 11:54 odp. Kevin Fenzi napsal(a):
mxml is ASL-2.0 with a linking exception for "GPLv2 or LGPLv2"
(https://github.com/michaelrsweet/mxml/blob/master/NOTICE )
Should that be:
apache-2.0 WITH GPL-Linking-Exception ?
GPL-Linking-Exception does not exists.
https://spdx.org/licens
Dne 30. 07. 24 v 7:40 odp. Ben Beasley napsal(a):
Could you please take a look at rust-oxipng to see exactly what the tooling is
complaining about? Everything in the spec
file,https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-oxipng/blob/rawhide/f/rust-oxipng.spec,
looks like a valid SPDX expression to
Dne 30. 07. 24 v 7:23 odp. Richard Shaw napsal(a):
Per upstream opencascade is "GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) version 2.1
with additional exception"
https://dev.opencascade.org/resources/licensing
Does that translate to "LGPL-2.1-only with additional exception"?
No.
It should be:
Hi.
I am going to do the mass change of the licenses from "GPL+ or Artistic" to
"GPL-1.0-or-later OR Artistic-1.0-Perl"
The proposed diff is here https://k00.fr/1o80qex2
Affected packages:
https://k00.fr/fsag6bev
Unless somebody stop me, I will do this change directly in dist-git after a
we
Dne 30. 07. 24 v 5:05 odp. Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho napsal(a):
Miroslav Suchý writes:
libcxx nikic sergesanspaille spot tstellar tuliom
I believe this project got listed by mistake.
Its current license is: Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception OR MIT OR NCSA
Isn't t
Dne 30. 07. 24 v 4:40 odp. Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
churchyard pypy pypy3.10 pypy3.9
IMHO this uses a valid Callaway expression.
It has UCD in it, which is not part of fedora-license-data, but it was listed
in the old wiki:
There is https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:UCD
And it is list
As the SPDX Change slowly finishes I focused on the license that I regularly
report as:
warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please check
These are license tags that are hard to automatically parse. It include texts like "GPLv1 AND/OR GPLv2", free form
description of exception
Dne 30. 07. 24 v 12:46 odp. Petr Pisar napsal(a):
Yes, weak dependencies are disabled in Koji. See install_weak_deps DNF option:
I will add that Koji inherits this from Mock where it is disabled too.
The reason is that we want to have reproducible builds (as possible). With this enable we can
Dne 18. 06. 24 v 11:00 dop. Miroslav Suchý napsal(a):
I am going to do the mass change of the license from GPLv3 to GPL-3.0-only
Done.
Diff is
https://k00.fr/d8fma5zp
--
Miroslav Suchy, RHCA
Red Hat, Manager, Packit and CPT, #brno, #fedora-buildsys
Dne 18. 06. 24 v 6:46 odp. Miroslav Suchý napsal(a):
I am going to do the mass change of the license from GPLv2 to GPL-2.0-only
Done.
The diff is here https://k00.fr/c1vnf850
--
Miroslav Suchy, RHCA
Red Hat, Manager, Packit and CPT, #brno, #fedora-buildsys
Dne 18. 06. 24 v 10:41 dop. Miroslav Suchý napsal(a):
Hi.
I am going to do the mass change of the license from LGPLv3 to LGPL-3.0-only
Done.
The diff is here
https://k00.fr/o7ej5fye
--
Miroslav Suchy, RHCA
Red Hat, Manager, Packit and CPT, #brno, #fedora-buildsys
Dne 18. 06. 24 v 8:04 dop. Miroslav Suchý napsal(a):
I am going to do the mass change of the license from GPLv2+ to GPL-2.0-or-later
Done.
The diff is here: https://k00.fr/bsjujpgb
--
Miroslav Suchy, RHCA
Red Hat, Manager, Packit and CPT, #brno, #fedora-buildsys
Done.
The diff is here
https://k00.fr/64nesi4q
I skipped aws per Bjorn request.
--
Miroslav Suchy, RHCA
Red Hat, Manager, Packit and CPT, #brno, #fedora-buildsys
--
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email
Dne 24. 07. 24 v 12:30 odp. Joe Orton napsal(a):
Having a "majority rule" vote of e.g. packagers or provenpackagers on
major technical decisions would be far superior, in my view. Apache
communities have worked this way forever.
You can always propose this as a change to our process.
--
Mirosl
Dne 19. 06. 24 v 8:01 dop. Miroslav Suchý napsal(a):
Hi.
I am going to do the mass change of the license from Boost to BSL-1.0
Done.
The diff is here
https://k00.fr/u4sq8h12
--
Miroslav Suchy, RHCA
Red Hat, Manager, Packit and CPT, #brno, #fedora-buildsys
Dne 18. 06. 24 v 6:42 dop. Miroslav Suchý napsal(a):
I am going to do the mass change of the license from ASL 2.0 to Apache-2.0
Done.
Following the Tuesday's FESCO decision I amended my script and added there
comments.
Here is the diff https://k00.fr/tkbg4k81
--
Miroslav Suchy, RHC
Dne 21. 07. 24 v 11:21 dop. Paul Howarth napsal(a):
python-paramiko failed to build in the mass rebuild and I'm wondering
if there's incorrect code in paramiko (or its dependency cryptography),
or whether it's a regression in the current Python beta.
The failures are in the test suite and the fa
Hot news:
* FESCO agreed on decision about conversions. But there was a confusion about the wording, so the ticket is reopened
https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3230
* The confusion is just about "trivial" conversions. All others will be converted to LicenseRef-Callaway-$OLDID before
Change Compl
Dne 18. 07. 24 v 10:06 odp. Kevin Fenzi napsal(a):
In any case, please don't do any more changes and we should revisit
this
Standing by. :)
--
Miroslav Suchy, RHCA
Red Hat, Manager, Packit and CPT, #brno, #fedora-buildsys
--
___
devel mailing list -
Dne 17. 07. 24 v 6:41 odp. Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
> Done.
Hi Mirek,
I am a bit confused.
I thought there was a clear nonconsensus about the *GPL conversion [1] which resulted to the FESCo ticket [2]. It is
kinda surprising to see the "Done." comment here and in the LGPL thread as well.
[1]
Dne 18. 06. 24 v 8:19 dop. Miroslav Suchý napsal(a):
I am going to do the mass change of the license from AGPLv3 to AGPL-3.0-only
Done.
--
Miroslav Suchy, RHCA
Red Hat, Manager, Packit and CPT, #brno, #fedora-buildsys
--
___
devel mailing list
Dne 16. 06. 24 v 10:18 odp. Miroslav Suchý napsal(a):
I am going to do the mass change of the license from LGPLv3+ to
LGPL-3.0-or-later
Done.
--
Miroslav Suchy, RHCA
Red Hat, Manager, Packit and CPT, #brno, #fedora-buildsys
--
___
devel mailing
Dne 16. 07. 24 v 3:34 dop. Kevin Kofler via devel napsal(a):
The real issue still appears to be that "Disk storage is the commodity that
incurs the highest cloud costs.", which means that cloud might not be the
right technology to use here. Or at least the particular cloud
implementation you are
Dne 15. 07. 24 v 2:57 odp. Stephen Gallagher napsal(a):
Instead of always keeping "Rawhide" around as a separate buildroot,
why not just rename it at Branching and then create a NEW Rawhide
chroot?
1) Different workflow compared to the one we have in Fedora.
2) Create it with what? Empty conte
Dne 15. 07. 24 v 3:38 odp. samyak.j...@gmail.com napsal(a):
The content of this message was lost. It was probably cross-posted to
multiple lists and previously handled on another list.
This is not first time I see this. First I thought it is my setup. But it is in
ML archives too.
https://lis
Hot news:
* Discussion about trivial conversion did not have consensus. I opened FESCO
ticket https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3230
* Scancode-toolkit is present in Fedora 40 too. If you want to play with it - here is the command line that gives *me*
the best result:
scancode --license --licen
Dne 03. 07. 24 v 6:02 odp. Marián Konček napsal(a):
As many of you know, as packages change, so do their BuildRequires. In the current state, maintaining them requires
some manual work from the maintainer.
1. So I got around the idea of a simple tool that checks file accesses during the build a
Dne 02. 07. 24 v 9:45 odp. maxw...@gtmx.me napsal(a):
python-orderedset orphan 2 weeks ago
Note that we have python-ordered-set that is well maintained. Same interface.
Different implementation.
--
Miroslav Suchy, RHCA
Red Hat, Manager, Packit and CPT
Dne 01. 07. 24 v 4:58 odp. Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
If the decision was made to proceed with the `LicenseRef-` prefix, I assume you would keep sending us some statistics,
how many old identifiers remains, right?
My original plan was to close this with deadline for F41 Changes and focus on someth
Unfortunatelly I do not see a clear consensus here. I think that exactly for
such cases we have good instution: FESCO.
I filed https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3230 and I will follow FESCO decision.
--
Miroslav Suchy, RHCA
Red Hat, Manager, Packit and CPT, #brno, #fedora-buildsys
--
Dne 26. 06. 24 v 11:47 dop. Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
Clearly, I must miss something. What do we gain by causing all license tags to conform to the SPDX license expression
standard despite actually just using the old tag with extra boilerplate?
We will get valid SPDX formula. And all tools gene
Dne 25. 06. 24 v 1:09 odp. Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
Could you make the comment something like this?
# Automatically converted from old format: GPLv2
# TODO check if there are other licenses to be listed
License: GPL-2.0-only
We (the Change owners) discussed this on a meeting today. And
Dne 24. 06. 24 v 9:48 dop. Mattia Verga via devel napsal(a):
IMO, having the token stored in your password manager means going from 2FA to 1FA effectively ;-) if someone gets
access to your password manager vault, all accounts will be compromised.
Only if you use the same password manager for b
Dne 23. 06. 24 v 11:50 dop. Leigh Scott napsal(a):
it has made kerberos login much harder
Can you elaborate?
I use Kerberos login without a problem.
I'm considering ditching provenpackager rights if that is a condition.
Or you can help us to improve the user experience.
--
Miroslav Suchy,
Dne 21. 06. 24 v 11:55 dop. Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a):
+1 for continuing the (imperfect) convertion to SPDX.
Note that current phase is the last one. Before "Change Checkpoint: 100% Code Complete Deadline" (that is 2024-08-20) I
plan to file Bugzillas for all remaining non-converte
Hot news:
I sent lots of announces about automatic migrations. Miro Hrončok raised a question. Feel free to join the discussion.
Either here on legal ML.
Scancode-toolkit (very powerfull license scanner) and all its dependencies passed all Package Reviews and is heading
to rawhide. Thank yo
Dne 19. 06. 24 v 5:58 odp. Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
How do you know the License tag is not supposed to be e.g. "GPL-2.0-only AND
MIT" or similar?
Converting "GPLv2" (which could mean any number of "weaker" licenses are hidden under the "stronger" GPL in the old
notation) to "GPL-2.0-only" (whi
Hi.
I am going to do the mass change of the license from Boost to BSL-1.0
The proposed diff is here https://k00.fr/u4sq8h12
Affected packages:
attract-mode
avgtime
boost-http-server
cryptopp
gtengine
ldc
libfixposix
lunchbox
mingw-boost
mingw-polyclipping
msgpack
prusa-slicer
R-AsioHeaders
R-B
Hi.
I am going to do the mass change of the license from GPLv2 to GPL-2.0-only
The proposed diff is here https://k00.fr/c1vnf850
Affected packages:
acpica-tools
adanaxisgpl
alevt
aoetools
apcupsd
appliance-tools
arachne-pnr
artwiz-aleczapka-fonts
aspell-fi
aspell-la
asterisk
asunder
authbind
b
Hi.
I am going to do the mass change of the license from GPLv3 to GPL-3.0-only
The proposed diff is here https://k00.fr/d8fma5zp
Affected packages:
abcm2ps
Add64
adwaita-blue-gtk-theme
airnef
alizams
ampache_browser
ansible-openstack-modules
arianna
aron
arpage
autokey
barman
buttermanager
bwa
in Qt5
-License:LGPLv3
+License:LGPL-3.0-only
URL:https://launchpad.net/%{name}
Source0:http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/main/a/%{name}/%{name}_%{version}.orig.tar.gz
@@ -95,6 +95,9 @@
%changelog
+* Tue Jun 18 2024 Miroslav Suchý - 0.3.0+16.10.20160628.1-36
Hi.
I am going to do the mass change of the license from GPLv2+ to GPL-2.0-or-later
The proposed diff is too big to be attached. So here is a link
https://k00.fr/bsjujpgb
Affected packages:
abcde
abcMIDI
abook
AcetoneISO
acpi
acpitool
admesh
adplug
afuse
aiksaurus
airspyone_host
algobox
alie
1 - 100 of 1007 matches
Mail list logo
