On 24. 12. 21 10:05, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 24. 12. 21 1:57, Ben Beasley wrote:
I’m aware that pyproject-rpm-macros can handle license files in many cases[1]:
%pyproject_save_files can automatically mark license files with %license
macro and language (*.mo) files with %lang macro and appropriate language
code. Only license files declared via PEP 639 License-Field field are
detected. PEP 639 is still a draft and can be changed in the future.
(I also know that there are some packages where no license file is marked, or
where additional license files are needed, and it’s best to verify with “rpm
-qL -p …” before relying on this feature. That’s not at issue here.)
In a package review, it was suggested that, even when pyproject_files
includes a license file installed in the dist-info directory and marked with
%license, an explicit installation of the license file with a relative path,
such as
> %license LICENSE.txt
might still be needed—under the theory that the license file is supposed to
be installed in /usr/share/licenses.
This assumption is not true. I even recall asking somewhere wrt Python's
license file:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python3.9/c/ff90d23b8f5d2b721aa55289d69cf1e27ba86449?branch=rawhide
But I don't recall where. Might have been this list or legal.
Here:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/thread/OHNVT5S4ZPOB56KAYNCWZOC6W2WAV54C/
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
_______________________________________________
packaging mailing list -- packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to packaging-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/packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
