On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 12:47 AM Maxwell G <gotmax@e.email> wrote: > I don't follow. What "rpm spec file support" are you referring to? I interpreted the proposal as adding a new stanza SPDX: in addition to License: which requires changing the definition. The follow up suggested that the license field be differently formatted. I disagree with such explanatory prefixes, as it requires yet more apps to parse/support various prefixes. If msuchy's proposal is not accepted (allow packagers to use SPDX in all) lets just go back to one of the original proposals and have proven packagers just do a bulk conversion after giving existing packagers time to do their own conversion. One and done (and, yes, wrong some of the time, but that too can be fixed). _______________________________________________ epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
