Re: SPDX identifiers in old branches?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 09:25:01AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 8:40 AM Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 10:49:15AM +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> > > Dne 25. 05. 22 v 2:44 Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
> > > > 2) There are tags that might mean slightly different things in each
> > > > notation. E.g. MIT. Is this package licensed with the SPDX MIT? Or is it
> > > > a old-style MIT that might mean different SPDX notation? Note that the
> > > > old-style MIT seems to be a superset of SPDX MIT, so this isn't probably
> > > > getting worse than it is, it's just a tad confusing.
> > >
> > > I think that we can assume that if
> > >
> > > gitlog --pretty=oneline
> > >
> > > contains `spdx` or similar string, than the spec file use the new notation.
> >
> > Ewwww, please no. Apps need to know whether a given RPM is using SPDX
> > or not, independantly of whether they have Fedora git source history
> > available. We just need to record this fact in the specfile explicitly,
> > so it is available both to maintainers and to any apps parsing the
> > spec and to any apps querying the installed RPMDB.
> >
> 
> I think people assume we do more with the License tag than we actually
> do. We have no active automated auditing or validation of package license tags
> at this time. That may come in later phases, and lead to total
> conversion to SPDX identifiers, but right now, this is overthinking
> the problem way too much.

I don't think it is overthinking. The change proposal says

  "There will be [[Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_2|Phase 2]], where 
   we identify the remaining packages and help them to migrate to 
   the SPDX formula."

so whatever we do in phase 1 needs to leave us in a state where
we have a reliable way to identify outstanding packages needing
converting in phase 2.  I don't think relying on git logs is a
satisfactory solution to that problem, compared to the suggestion
to use 'License: SPDX: <tags>' in the spec which is unambiguous
and explicit.

With regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: https://berrange.com      -o-    https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org         -o-            https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org    -o-    https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
_______________________________________________
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




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux