> Dne 10. 11. 22 v 12:04 Remi Collet napsal(a):
>
>
> Open an issue for
>
> https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data
>
> if there is need for new SPDX id then Jilayne will request it for you and add
> it to
> fedora-license-data.
>
Just a quick process clarification here!
Hi all,
Sorry for joining the thread late, but a few thoughts below!
> Tl;dr Please start migrating your license tag to SPDX now. Tool
> `license-fedora2spdx` is
> your friend. The JSON format
> changed - but is backwards compatible.
>
>
> Hi.
>
> I want to update you on where we are with
V Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 11:01:54AM -0500, Michel Alexandre Salim napsal(a):
> To clarify -- while SPDX license strings are not valid for RHEL 9, are
> they valid for EPEL 9?
>
Yes. Fedora packaging guidelines also apply to EPEL.
-- Petr
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 07:17:00PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 11. 11. 22 17:24, Sandro wrote:
> > I'm not quite sure why pulling in an additional supplemental dependency
> > would be considered a breaking change. Is it because rpmlint behaves
> > differently with the new license definitions?
On 14. 11. 22 14:58, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 07:17:00PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 11. 11. 22 17:24, Sandro wrote:
I'm not quite sure why pulling in an additional supplemental
dependency would be considered a breaking change. Is it because
rpmlint behaves
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 07:17:00PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 11. 11. 22 17:24, Sandro wrote:
> >I'm not quite sure why pulling in an additional supplemental
> >dependency would be considered a breaking change. Is it because
> >rpmlint behaves differently with the new license definitions?
>
On 11-11-2022 19:17, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 11. 11. 22 17:24, Sandro wrote:
I'm not quite sure why pulling in an additional supplemental dependency would
be considered a breaking change. Is it because rpmlint behaves differently with
the new license definitions?
Yes. Suppose I am running a
On 11. 11. 22 17:24, Sandro wrote:
I'm not quite sure why pulling in an additional supplemental dependency would
be considered a breaking change. Is it because rpmlint behaves differently with
the new license definitions?
Yes. Suppose I am running a Fedora 36 system with rpmlint installed and
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 11:24 AM Sandro wrote:
>
> On 11-11-2022 13:56, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > On 11. 11. 22 13:07, Sandro wrote:
> >> On 11-11-2022 10:33, Neal Gompa wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 4:32 AM Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 4:18 AM Sandro wrote:
>
On 11-11-2022 13:56, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 11. 11. 22 13:07, Sandro wrote:
On 11-11-2022 10:33, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 4:32 AM Neal Gompa wrote:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 4:18 AM Sandro wrote:
On 11-11-2022 10:12, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 4:10 AM
On 11. 11. 22 13:07, Sandro wrote:
On 11-11-2022 10:33, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 4:32 AM Neal Gompa wrote:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 4:18 AM Sandro wrote:
On 11-11-2022 10:12, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 4:10 AM Sandro wrote:
On 08-11-2022 15:06, David
On 11-11-2022 10:33, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 4:32 AM Neal Gompa wrote:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 4:18 AM Sandro wrote:
On 11-11-2022 10:12, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 4:10 AM Sandro wrote:
On 08-11-2022 15:06, David Cantrell wrote:
On Tue, Nov 08, 2022
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 4:32 AM Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 4:18 AM Sandro wrote:
> >
> > On 11-11-2022 10:12, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 4:10 AM Sandro wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On 08-11-2022 15:06, David Cantrell wrote:
> > >>> On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 4:18 AM Sandro wrote:
>
> On 11-11-2022 10:12, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 4:10 AM Sandro wrote:
> >>
> >> On 08-11-2022 15:06, David Cantrell wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at 09:45:57AM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> Should new package
On 11-11-2022 10:12, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 4:10 AM Sandro wrote:
On 08-11-2022 15:06, David Cantrell wrote:
On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at 09:45:57AM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
Should new package reviews (for Rawhide) now be rejected if they
don't have SPDX tags?
Yes,
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 4:10 AM Sandro wrote:
>
> On 08-11-2022 15:06, David Cantrell wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at 09:45:57AM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >> Should new package reviews (for Rawhide) now be rejected if they
> >> don't have SPDX tags?
> >
> > Yes, new packages going
On 08-11-2022 15:06, David Cantrell wrote:
On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at 09:45:57AM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
Should new package reviews (for Rawhide) now be rejected if they
don't have SPDX tags?
Yes, new packages going forward should use SPDX expressions in the
License tag.
When will
On 11/10/22 09:47 AM, Eike Rathke wrote:
Hi Miroslav,
On Monday, 2022-11-07 18:46:26 +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
Tl;dr Please start migrating your license tag to SPDX now.
Is it ok to have SPDX tags on all currently supported release branches,
i.e. f37, f36, f35?
Yes.
Steve
Hi Miroslav,
On Monday, 2022-11-07 18:46:26 +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Tl;dr Please start migrating your license tag to SPDX now.
Is it ok to have SPDX tags on all currently supported release branches,
i.e. f37, f36, f35?
Eike
--
GPG key 0x6A6CD5B765632D3A - 2265 D7F3 A7B0 95CC 3918
Le 10/11/2022 à 13:48, Miroslav Suchý a écrit :
Dne 10. 11. 22 v 12:04 Remi Collet napsal(a):
What is the process to ask for a new SPDX id ?
Open an issue for
https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data
Done as https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues/95
Dne 10. 11. 22 v 12:04 Remi Collet napsal(a):
I'm searching for License identifier for php-pecl-xdebug
which was "BSD"
It is based on PHP-3.0 which is based on BSD-3-Clause
What should I use ?
You are speaking about
https://github.com/xdebug/xdebug/blob/master/LICENSE
I pasted the content
I'm searching for License identifier for php-pecl-xdebug
which was "BSD"
It is based on PHP-3.0 which is based on BSD-3-Clause
What should I use ?
What is the process to ask for a new SPDX id ?
Thanks,
Remi
___
devel mailing list --
Dne 09. 11. 22 v 17:00 Fabio Valentini napsal(a):
On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 2:52 PM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
Dne 09. 11. 22 v 13:58 Neal Gompa napsal(a):
What do we do if the SPDX tag is the same as the existing license
tag (eg ISC) though? Do we just add a dummy change/commit entry that
mentions
Dne 09. 11. 22 v 15:05 Gary Buhrmaster napsal(a):
Does it make sense for your script in some future
iteration to add in the capability to check if the
license is identical pre/post SPDX if the spec does
not have a changelog or commit message mentioning
SPDX? Either hard code the cases (not
On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 2:52 PM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
>
> Dne 09. 11. 22 v 13:58 Neal Gompa napsal(a):
>
> What do we do if the SPDX tag is the same as the existing license
> tag (eg ISC) though? Do we just add a dummy change/commit entry that
> mentions SPDX to confirm we've reviewed it?
>
>
On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 1:52 PM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Actually... if you add there the dummy changelog entry, it makes my work
> easier.
Does it make sense for your script in some future
iteration to add in the capability to check if the
license is identical pre/post SPDX if the spec does
not
Dne 09. 11. 22 v 13:58 Neal Gompa napsal(a):
What do we do if the SPDX tag is the same as the existing license
tag (eg ISC) though? Do we just add a dummy change/commit entry that
mentions SPDX to confirm we've reviewed it?
Don't bother. Eventually, we'll re-process all spec files and identify
Dne 08. 11. 22 v 11:07 Petr Pisar napsal(a):
Could you remove from the listing spec files whose License tag contains
capitalized SPDX conjunctions (OR AND WITH)? Cf. perl-Alien-Build.
Great idea. Will do.
Miroslav
___
devel mailing list --
On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 7:51 AM Tom Hughes via devel
wrote:
>
> On 07/11/2022 17:46, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
>
> > 8.
> >
> > After you migrate your SPEC file, please add the string “SPDX” to
> > the entry of the packages’ %changelog. This is the easiest way to
> > detect the migration
On 07/11/2022 17:46, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
8.
After you migrate your SPEC file, please add the string “SPDX” to
the entry of the packages’ %changelog. This is the easiest way to
detect the migration has been done. The second best option is to add
it to the dist-git commit
On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at 09:45:57AM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> Should new package reviews (for Rawhide) now be rejected if they don't
> have SPDX tags?
Yes, new packages going forward should use SPDX expressions in the License
tag.
--
David Cantrell
Red Hat, Inc. | Boston, MA | EST5EDT
V Mon, Nov 07, 2022 at 06:46:26PM +0100, Miroslav Suchý napsal(a):
> 8.
>
>After you migrate your SPEC file, please add the string “SPDX” to the
> entry of the packages’ %changelog. This is the
>easiest way to detect the migration has been done. The second best option
> is to add it to
Should new package reviews (for Rawhide) now be rejected if they don't
have SPDX tags?
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com
virt-p2v converts physical machines to virtual
On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 2:04 PM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Please, start migrating your spec files **now**. You can use the tool
> `license-fedora2spdx` from package `license-validate`. Use this opportunity
> to check if your package license matches the upstream version - especially if
> you took
Tl;dr Please start migrating your license tag to SPDX now. Tool `license-fedora2spdx` is your friend. The JSON format
changed - but is backwards compatible.
Hi.
I want to update you on where we are with SPDX Change https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1
35 matches
Mail list logo
