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 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 f37 branches?No. Old branches i.e. f35, f36 and f37 will keep using the old short names. No change there. The same for epel9-.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 works.I just got an idea. Do I assume right that while the old Fedora tags -> SPDX mapping is ambiguous, but the reverse is well defined? If that's the case, can we make a macro that would: 1. Validate an SPDX expression for correct syntax, errors if invalid 2. On Fedora > X || RHEL > Y returns the input unchanged 3. On older releases, converts all names from the input to the old names (possibly de-duplicating matching groups) You would use it like this: License: %{spdx BSD-3-Clause and BSD-2-Clause} This would evaluate to either of the following depending on the release: License: BSD-3-Clause and BSD-2-Clause or License: BSD Does that make sense? If we package spdx2fedora data in a Lua-readbale form, I believe I can draft a naïve implementation of that macro.Here is an absolutely naïve proof of concept. It does not validate and it does not deduplicate. https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/merge_requests/3 I also see that we have 5 SPDX abbrevs that have multiple options in the old Fedora abbrevs. The macro warns about that and uses the first value it founds, which is the one that was written first in the data, so we can control the priority by the data.I think this is a good idea and thanks for making this a MR on the fedora-license-data project, because that's where this should go.
I have proposed something similar here: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/message/V6V5KWV6SFRZF5VUZFTOGCQNRBZFFLVC/And at that time, you did not think "using a macro for the License tag is a good idea". But I don't mind you changing your position :)
Vít
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to 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/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure