On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 11:24 AM Sandro <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 <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. > > > > rpmlint-fedora-license-data already Supplements rpmlint. Adding the requirement > > might be considered as a breaking change, so we only did it in rawhide. > > Hmm. But somehow this weak dependency seems to be too weak to be pulled > in on update. So, it's of no use if rpmlint is already installed. > > 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? > Supplements no longer affect already-installed packages, so that's why it didn't get pulled in. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! _______________________________________________ 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
