[Bug 2038591] Review Request: ansible-packaging - RPM packaging macros and generators for Ansible collections

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

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2038591

Neal Gompa <ngompa13@xxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |igor.raits@xxxxxxxxx
              Flags|                            |needinfo?(igor.raits@gmail.
                   |                            |com)



--- Comment #5 from Neal Gompa <ngompa13@xxxxxxxxx> ---
(In reply to Kevin Fenzi from comment #4)
> (In reply to Maxwell G from comment #3)
> > Are you licensing this under GPLv3+, because that's the license of the
> > ansible package? I think it can also be argued that this is MIT, because
> > that's Fedora's implicit license. You might want to check with Igor Raits,
> > the original author of the macros/generators[1], about the licensing.
> > Honestly, I think it's problematic that Fedora relies on implicit licenses
> > while still recommending that upstream ships explicit license files, but I
> > don't know the full context surrounding this decision.
> 
> He contributed those and did not add a "and MIT" or note that they were MIT,
> so I thought it was pretty clear that he wanted them to be contributed under
> GPLv3+ like ansible. 
> I agree we can confirm with him tho... 
>  


Easy enough to check... Igor, do you want these MIT licensed instead or GPLv3+
as Ansible does?

> > The other problem is that this package does not depend on any package that
> > provides /usr/bin/ansible-galaxy. Currently, every supported Fedora version
> 
> But it doesn't need to? The end collection does to build, but this is just
> echoing out macros...
> 
> > has both `ansible` 2.9 and `ansible-core` (they conflict with each other),
> > but Epel 7 and 8 only have the former. As you know, EL 9 itself already
> > contains `ansible-core`. I think this package should depend on ansible-core
> > wherever possible. Then, we can have collections BR `ansible-packaging` and
> > get rid of the current `BuildRequires:  (ansible >= 2.9.10 or ansible-core
> > >= 2.11.0)` which defaults to ansible. I would suggest something like this:
> > 
> > ```
> > %if 0%{?fedora} >= 34 || 0%{?rhel} >= 9
> > Requires: ansible-core >= 2.11.0
> > %else
> > Requires: ansible >= 2.9.10
> > ```
> 
> I suppose. I was just going to suggest dealing with that after 2.9.x goes
> EOL and dropping it then. 
> 
> > We will also need to address the generated requires.
> > 
> > [1]:
> > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ansible/c/
> > db3f8ce6dcb8907cf9e5e06ee399a18c6696887a?branch=rawhide
> 
> Sure. All at the same time I would hope.

I deliberately did not include all that stuff until we figure out what we want
to do here.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2038591
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-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/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite Conditions]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux