On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 11:32:12AM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote:
On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 5:41 PM David Cantrell wrote:
On Wed, Jan 05, 2022 at 02:59:33AM +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
>Dne 04. 01. 22 v 21:03 David Cantrell napsal(a):
>>One of the difficult things with the Fedora abbreviations
On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 5:41 PM David Cantrell wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 05, 2022 at 02:59:33AM +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> >Dne 04. 01. 22 v 21:03 David Cantrell napsal(a):
> >>One of the difficult things with the Fedora abbreviations is that
> >>tokens can have spaces in them. For example, the
On Wed, Jan 05, 2022 at 03:10:47AM +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
Dne 04. 01. 22 v 21:33 David Cantrell napsal(a):
I feel like I'm missing something, but rpminspect has been doing what
license-validate does for years now. It's ready for SPDX expressions.
Results show up for Fedora builds in
On Wed, Jan 05, 2022 at 02:59:33AM +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
Dne 04. 01. 22 v 21:03 David Cantrell napsal(a):
One of the difficult things with the Fedora abbreviations is that
tokens can have spaces in them. For example, the Apache 2.0 license
in Fedora is called "ASL 2.0". This makes it
Dne 04. 01. 22 v 21:33 David Cantrell napsal(a):
I feel like I'm missing something, but rpminspect has been doing what
license-validate does for years now. It's ready for SPDX expressions.
Results show up for Fedora builds in Zuul. Or you can run it locally.
Here is my motivation:
We are
Dne 04. 01. 22 v 21:03 David Cantrell napsal(a):
One of the difficult things with the Fedora abbreviations is that
tokens can have spaces in them. For example, the Apache 2.0 license
in Fedora is called "ASL 2.0". This makes it really hard to work with
in software.
Likewise, we have
Neal Gompa writes:
> On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 3:10 PM Robbie Harwood wrote:
>>
>> Neal Gompa writes:
>>
>> > On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 2:25 PM Robbie Harwood wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Neal Gompa writes:
>> >>
>> >> > SPDX expression logic is identical to Fedora's, so that will not
>> >> > change.
>> >>
On Tue, Jan 04, 2022 at 03:21:20PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 3:10 PM Robbie Harwood wrote:
Neal Gompa writes:
> On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 2:25 PM Robbie Harwood wrote:
>>
>> Neal Gompa writes:
>>
>> > SPDX expression logic is identical to Fedora's, so that will not
>> >
On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 3:10 PM Robbie Harwood wrote:
>
> Neal Gompa writes:
>
> > On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 2:25 PM Robbie Harwood wrote:
> >>
> >> Neal Gompa writes:
> >>
> >> > SPDX expression logic is identical to Fedora's, so that will not
> >> > change.
> >>
> >> I don't believe that's
Neal Gompa writes:
> On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 2:25 PM Robbie Harwood wrote:
>>
>> Neal Gompa writes:
>>
>> > SPDX expression logic is identical to Fedora's, so that will not
>> > change.
>>
>> I don't believe that's correct.
>>
>> For instance, for the LGPL, SPDX uses "LGPL-2.0-only" and
>>
On Tue, Jan 04, 2022 at 02:40:06PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 2:25 PM Robbie Harwood wrote:
Neal Gompa writes:
> SPDX expression logic is identical to Fedora's, so that will not
> change.
I don't believe that's correct.
For instance, for the LGPL, SPDX uses
On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 2:25 PM Robbie Harwood wrote:
>
> Neal Gompa writes:
>
> > SPDX expression logic is identical to Fedora's, so that will not
> > change.
>
> I don't believe that's correct.
>
> For instance, for the LGPL, SPDX uses "LGPL-2.0-only" and
> "LGPL-2.0-or-later", while Fedora
Neal Gompa writes:
> SPDX expression logic is identical to Fedora's, so that will not
> change.
I don't believe that's correct.
For instance, for the LGPL, SPDX uses "LGPL-2.0-only" and
"LGPL-2.0-or-later", while Fedora currently uses "LGPLv2" and "LGPLv2+".
(From https://spdx.org/licenses/
Dne 29. 12. 21 v 17:22 Artur Frenszek-Iwicki napsal(a):
My personal suggestion would be to add a "line by line" mode for interactive
usage,
so instead of:
K.I.S.S. I always start with tool which can handle one item. And then built
large tool on top of it.
$ license-validate --verbose
On 29. 12. 21 13:42, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
Dne 26. 12. 21 v 22:45 Matthew Miller napsal(a):
On Sun, Dec 26, 2021 at 10:08:24PM +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
My next goal will be to download all Fedora's spec files, extract
the license line and run it through this script. But I am going to
be
> I have created new tool license-validate:
> https://pagure.io/copr/license-validate/
I've written something relatively similar a few years back
(https://github.com/suve/vrms-rpm).
I took a look at the code - using a proper parser is definitely a better
solution than the error-prone,
Dne 26. 12. 21 v 22:45 Matthew Miller napsal(a):
On Sun, Dec 26, 2021 at 10:08:24PM +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
My next goal will be to download all Fedora's spec files, extract
the license line and run it through this script. But I am going to
be few days offline, so anyone who want step in
Dne 27. 12. 21 v 11:33 Björn Persson napsal(a):
$ license-validate-v'GPL or (MIT and BSD)'
No terminal defined for 'G' at line 1 col 1
Approximately nobody will understand "No terminal defined for 'G'". Can
the error message be improved?
I know. I wish to improve it too. This is my
On 27/12/2021 01:16, Maxwell G (@gotmax23) via devel wrote:
Am I allowed to switch my existing packages to use the SPDX license
identifiers, or should I hold off?
You should wait until this feature is fully accepted accepted and merged.
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org)
Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> $ license-validate-v'GPL or (MIT and BSD)'
> No terminal defined for 'G' at line 1 col 1
Approximately nobody will understand "No terminal defined for 'G'". Can
the error message be improved?
Björn Persson
pgp5AIXhmHYUH.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signatur
Tell me when you get the rpm up so I can add it:
https://release-monitoring.org/project/226644/
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
Dne 27. 12. 21 v 0:44 Neal Gompa napsal(a):
I would suggest holding off on that, as we are working on updating the
guidelines to use SPDX identifiers (and therefore SPDX expressions).
Any ETA?
SPDX expression logic is identical to Fedora's, so that will not
change. The identifiers will be
Dec 26, 2021 4:46:12 PM Matthew Miller :
> I would suggest holding off on that, as we are working on updating the
> guidelines to use SPDX identifiers (and therefore SPDX expressions).
I'm happy that we're moving in this direction. It's confusing to have two
different sets of license
On Sun, Dec 26, 2021 at 4:46 PM Matthew Miller wrote:
>
> On Sun, Dec 26, 2021 at 10:08:24PM +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> > My next goal will be to download all Fedora's spec files, extract
> > the license line and run it through this script. But I am going to
> > be few days offline, so anyone
On Sun, Dec 26, 2021 at 10:08:24PM +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> My next goal will be to download all Fedora's spec files, extract
> the license line and run it through this script. But I am going to
> be few days offline, so anyone who want step in QE shoes can do that
> - I will not be mad :)
Hi.
I have created new tool license-validate
https://pagure.io/copr/license-validate/
And I packaged it for Fedora. Here is the review request:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2035680
The goal of this tool is to validate the string in the License tag in the spec
file. I.e
26 matches
Mail list logo
