https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2307489 --- Comment #2 from Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Thank you for the review! (In reply to Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) from comment #1) > XXX Looks good XXX APPROVED XXX > > The only thing that I found was that the LICENSE may have been included > twice---please do check that before importing. > > - LICENSE seems to be included already---no need to re-include it explicitly > in %files? In cases were the build backend doesn’t declare license files via the PEP 639 License-File field, the license file in the .dist-infor field doesn’t get automatically marked with %license: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/snakemake_executor_plugin_flux-0.1.1.dist-info/LICENSE This package uses poetry-core, which is one such build backend. The usual practice is just to write %license LICENSE which gives an additional (properly indicated) license file /usr/share/licenses/python3-snakemake-executor-plugin-flux/LICENSE We can see that there is only one properly marked license file: $ rpm -qL -p /path/to/python3-snakemake-executor-plugin-flux-0.1.1-1.fc42.noarch.rpm /usr/share/licenses/python3-snakemake-executor-plugin-flux/LICENSE It’s technically possible to modify %{pyproject_files} using something like sed to add the annotation to the file in dist-info, but I have never seen it done, and I don’t think it would be a good practice. It would be too messy, with too much risk of error, for the tiny gain of avoiding one small duplicate file. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2307489 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202307489%23c2 -- _______________________________________________ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
