On 11-11-2022 19:17, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 11. 11. 22 17:24, Sandro wrote:
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?
Yes. Suppose I am running a Fedora 36 system with rpmlint installed and I use
it to validate spec files for RHEL 9. When I install
rpmlint-fedora-license-data, a huge bulk of licenses that were not valid when I
started to use Fedora 36 and that are not valid for RHEL 9 are suddenly valid.
That begs the question of how exactly to handle this specific case. I
just installed rpmlint-fedora-license-data. Starting with F38 rpmlint
will pull in rpmlint-fedora-license-data.
How is one to provide a spec file for both Fedora and RHEL, if the valid
license strings differ?
(I am not saying that we should never backport the dependency ever, I am just
explaining why it was not done in the past. If the consensus is that the hard
dependency is easier to our users that validate Fedora spec files, and that
this level of backwards compatibility is not worth it, that's alright with me.)
I'm not seeking justification. I'm well aware that there are multiple
use cases to consider and options to weigh. I was trying to understand
why rpmlint would (still) warn about invalid licenses, though the SPDX
licenses are accepted in all current releases and should be used for all
new packages.
I was blissfully unaware of the existence of rpmlint-fedora-license-data
until today.
-- 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
