On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 1:45 AM Miroslav Suchý <msu...@redhat.com> wrote: > > Dne 04. 04. 23 v 3:20 Richard Shaw napsal(a): > > WARNING: This is a small rant... > > np :) > > I decided to look up my packages on src.fedoraproject.org (I'm still not sure > if it's showing me all packages I'm admin of, or just main admin) and start > working through them one by one. > > Thank you for doing that. Even if you give up at the end. > > > I have updated my licensecount script which summarises the licenses in a > source and uses licensecheck to output SPDX licenses instead, but they output > the "short" form as far as I can tell, not the form that we want in the SPEC > file. > > Try: > > licensecheck --shortname-scheme=spdx -r . > > this gives me *almost* the wanted result: > > ./rpmconf.spec: *No copyright* GPL-3 > ./bin/rpmconf: GPL-3.0-or-later > ./rpmconf/rpmconf.py: GPL-3.0-or-later > > Last two lines are correct. The first line still use the short form. I > consider it a isolated bug of licensecheck - feel free to report issue there. >
It's not a bug in licensecheck. Licensecheck was written for Debian originally, and it uses DEP-5 as the core license standard. Debian does not plan to move to SPDX, but some effort was made to massage DEP-5 results into SPDX-like data. You can see the notes about this here: https://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
