On 20. 08. 26 18:51, Tadej Janež via python-devel wrote:
Hey,
I've noticed that python3-pypdf includes the LICENSE 2 times:
$ rpm -q --licensefiles python3-pypdf
/usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/pypdf-6.16.1.dist-
info/licenses/LICENSE
/usr/share/licenses/python3-pypdf/LICENSE
This is due to including it both via %pyproject_save_files macro and
manually via the '%license LICENSE' line:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pypdf/blob/5244ee1de1ad01cb3759e7a5ef653e649e2c6d96/f/python-pypdf.spec#_118
Originally, it needed to be manually added because it was not pulled in
automatically by the build backend:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected]/thread/4Y2VRLVAR3DJXBSFVDYJMU3G4ZNPGEU6/
Is it correct to drop the '%license LICENSE' now and ensure a LICENSE
file is present via '%pyproject_save_files --assert-license'?
See https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pypdf/pull-request/4
Yes.
I was about to add: Unless you need to build the same specfile on some old
version of Fedora or RHEL that might not have flit-core new enough to support
this. But worst case scenario is that it would fail to build, not ship without
a license.
However, the package already BuildRequires python3dist(flit-core) >= 3.11 and
hence it would fail with older flit-core anyway. AFAIK flit-core 3.11 is
exactly the version that added this functionality, based on
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/2350107
So yes, unconditionally.
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
--
_______________________________________________
python-devel mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
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/[email protected]
Do not reply to spam, report it:
https://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/tickets/issues/new
