On 11-11-2022 10:33, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 4:32 AM Neal Gompa <ngompa13@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 4:18 AM Sandro <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 11-11-2022 10:12, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 4:10 AM Sandro <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 08-11-2022 15:06, David Cantrell wrote:
On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at 09:45:57AM +0000, 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 rpmlint be updated to correctly recognize SPDX license tags? I
don't see it as part of the change proposal.
Right now it throws a warning, e.g.: W: invalid-license GPL-3.0-only.
Does it go away when you install rpmlint-fedora-license-data?
It does. Thanks for the pointer. So, I guess rpmlint should depend on it?
I will add a Recommends to it.
Actually, looks like this has been done a while ago:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rpmlint/c/9c506b5c4fe457944fbbfd51dec5a3f663995cdf
That change has only been pushed to rawhide. I tent to verify my
packages on a current release, currently either f35 or f36. My f35
machine will be upgraded to f37 in the near future. But even in f37
rpmlint-fedora-license-data is not required by rpmlint.
Simply adding 'Requires: rpmlint-fedora-license-data' to rpmlint.spec
for the current release branches should be sufficient, seeing that
installing rpmlint-fedora-license-data manually solves the false warning.
-- Sandro
_______________________________________________
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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
