Miroslav Suchý writes:
...
> Packages that are neither in SPDX nor in Callaway format (highest
> priority for now) - 32 packages:
>
> https://pagure.io/copr/license-validate/blob/main/f/neither-nor-remaining-packagers.txt
>
> Most of such packages has open issue in fedora-license-data. A lot of
Dne 02. 04. 25 v 12:30 odp. Daniel P. Berrangé napsal(a):
Even after that is merged, I would have though 'license-validate' is still
going to report an invalid expression, because BSD-3-Clause-Clear is not a
permitted license, and license-validate doesn't know the package name & thus
can't proces
On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 03:30:50PM +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Dne 31. 03. 25 v 2:14 odp. Vitaly Kuznetsov napsal(a):
> > Miroslav Suchý writes:
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > Packages that are neither in SPDX nor in Callaway format (highest
> > > priority for now) - 32 packages:
> > >
> > > https://p
Dne 31. 03. 25 v 2:14 odp. Vitaly Kuznetsov napsal(a):
Miroslav Suchý writes:
...
Packages that are neither in SPDX nor in Callaway format (highest
priority for now) - 32 packages:
https://pagure.io/copr/license-validate/blob/main/f/neither-nor-remaining-packagers.txt
Most of such packages h
Dne 12. 01. 25 v 6:50 odp. Fabio Valentini napsal(a):
Thanks for the reminder - I backported fixes from upstream for all
four of my packages that are in this list, so there will be 51 later
today. 🙂
Thank you.
("neither in SPDX nor in Callaway format" is also a bit of a lie -
these four pack
On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 7:08 AM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Packages that are neither in SPDX nor in Callaway format (highest priority
> for now) - 55 packages:
>
> https://pagure.io/copr/license-validate/blob/main/f/neither-nor-remaining-packagers.txt
Thanks for the reminder - I backported fixes fr
On Fri, Nov 08, 2024 at 08:51:47AM +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Hot news:
> * 24311 spec files in Fedora
>
> * 30967 license tags in all spec files
>
> * 360 tags are not SPDX complient (number from line bellow minus packages
> with LicenseRef-Callaway-*)
>
> * 2658 tags have not been convert
Dne 27. 09. 24 v 4:27 odp. Karolina Surma napsal(a):
I second Ben's findings, all of my packages have been migrated with a commit message saying "Review the License tag
according to the SPDX standard" and with an added "# SPDX" comment if there was no change of the string. The
automation should
Dne 27. 09. 24 v 4:01 odp. Ben Beasley napsal(a):
The list of packages without SPDX, packages-without-spdx-final-maintainers.txt, seems suspicious. It has quite a few
packages I maintain that seem perfectly fine to me.
NiaAML-GUI has:
# SPDX
License: MIT
and a commit/ch
> > NiaAML-GUI warning: valid as old and new and no changelong entry, please
> > check
python-funcparserlib was probably still showing up for the same
reason, I just went through a review again and this time added a
changelog entry.
Dridi
--
___
devel
I second Ben's findings, all of my packages have been migrated with a
commit message saying "Review the License tag according to the SPDX
standard" and with an added "# SPDX" comment if there was no change of
the string. The automation should not report any of those.
Karolina
On 9/27/24 16:01
The list of packages without SPDX,
packages-without-spdx-final-maintainers.txt, seems suspicious. It has
quite a few packages I maintain that seem perfectly fine to me.
NiaAML-GUI has:
# SPDX
License: MIT
and a commit/changelog in its history entitled “Clarify that Licens
Dne 31. 08. 24 v 1:09 odp. Michael Schwendt napsal(a):
On Sat, 31 Aug 2024 12:42:48 +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
List by package maintainers is here
https://pagure.io/copr/license-validate/blob/main/f/packages-without-spdx-final-maintainers.txt
Well, both "audacious" and "audacious-plugins"
On Sat, 31 Aug 2024 12:42:48 +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> List by package maintainers is here
>
> https://pagure.io/copr/license-validate/blob/main/f/packages-without-spdx-final-maintainers.txt
>
Well, both "audacious" and "audacious-plugins" are almost done, except
for the BSD variant they u
Dne 29. 08. 24 v 1:10 odp. Pavel Cahyna napsal(a):
Hello,
On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 10:55:13AM +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
Hot news:
SPDX v3 has been published. The biggest change for us is that license
expression allows lowercase operators (and, or, with). This got into the
specification b
Hello,
On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 10:55:13AM +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Hot news:
>
> SPDX v3 has been published. The biggest change for us is that license
> expression allows lowercase operators (and, or, with). This got into the
> specification because of your (Fedora maintainers) feedback!
Dne 18. 08. 24 v 6:50 dop. Richard Fontana napsal(a):
As noted by Ben, in this case you can optionally simplify it to:
Slightly side note for anyone wanting to play with expressions:
There is a library `license-expression` that allows you to operate with boolean logic of SPDX expressions. And
On Sat, Aug 17, 2024 at 3:13 PM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
>
> Dne 17. 08. 24 v 8:02 odp. Dridi Boukelmoune napsal(a):
>
> I ended up with the following license tag that I moved to SPDX as part
> of the incoming update:
>
> License: GPL-2.0-only AND MIT AND (GPL-2.0-only OR MIT)
>
> I feel like I c
On Sat, Aug 17, 2024 at 8:44 PM Ben Beasley wrote:
>
> At some point we added a rule,
>
> “A license should normally appear only once in the License: tag license
> expression. But if the license expression includes an OR sub-expression, that
> OR sub-expression is treated as though it were a sin
At some point we added a rule,
“A license should normally appear only once in the License: tag license
expression. But if the license expression includes an OR sub-expression, that
OR sub-expression is treated as though it were a single license for purposes of
this rule. *As an exception to
Dne 17. 08. 24 v 8:02 odp. Dridi Boukelmoune napsal(a):
I ended up with the following license tag that I moved to SPDX as part
of the incoming update:
License: GPL-2.0-only AND MIT AND (GPL-2.0-only OR MIT)
I feel like I could technically factor it to just "GPL-2.0-only AND
MIT" because pi
> Today we have:
>
> * 24312 spec files in Fedora
>
> * 30925 license tags in all spec files
>
> * 5740 tags have not been converted to SPDX yet
Soon we will have 5739 license tags left to update as I'm ready to
push a package update.
kcov bundles 3 javascript libraries in HTML reports so I ended
On Thu, Jul 4, 2024 at 1:11 AM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> * Scancode-toolkit is present in Fedora 40 too. If you want to play with it -
> here is the command line that gives *me* the best result:
> scancode --license --license-references -n6 --html /tmp/scan.html
> $DIR_WITH_UNPACKED_TARGZ
I'm
On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 3:25 AM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> The first program run from memory was exeucted on 21. June 2024
1948 :)
--
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.or
On Friday, 21 June 2024 at 09:24, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Hot news:
>
> I sent lots of announces about automatic migrations. Miro Hrončok raised a
> question. Feel free to join the discussion. Either here on legal ML.
>
> Scancode-toolkit (very powerfull license scanner) and all its dependencie
It is still not late to introduce e.g. `%callaway_licenses` macro and
enclose the old licenses into such macro, to make it more obvious that
those licenses were not converted yet. This should have been done from
the start
Vít
Dne 13. 05. 24 v 23:41 Miroslav Suchý napsal(a):
Dne 13. 05
Dne 13. 05. 24 v 5:38 odp. Fabio Valentini napsal(a):
Can we at least still recommend to use the AND / OR / WITH
capitalization for Fedora license tags, even if the lower-case ones
are technically considered valid now?
The other way round. We will not encourage using lower case and all our
exa
On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 3:28 PM Richard Fontana wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 11:44 AM Fabio Valentini wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 11:29 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > >
> > > On 10. 05. 24 10:55, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> > > > Hot news:
> > > >
> > > > SPDX v3 has been published.
On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 11:44 AM Fabio Valentini wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 11:29 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
> >
> > On 10. 05. 24 10:55, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> > > Hot news:
> > >
> > > SPDX v3 has been published. The biggest change for us is that license
> > > expression allows lowerca
On 10. 05. 24 22:45, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
Dne 10. 05. 24 v 11:29 dop. Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
So we can now have packages with uppercase AND/ORs and packages with
lowercase and/ors and we can no longer quickly recognize SPDX expression by
observing uppercase AND/ORs?
That does not sound li
On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 11:29 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> On 10. 05. 24 10:55, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> > Hot news:
> >
> > SPDX v3 has been published. The biggest change for us is that license
> > expression allows lowercase operators (and, or, with). This got into the
> > specification because
Dne 10. 05. 24 v 11:47 odp. Gary Buhrmaster napsal(a):
Unless the BZs force a package to be
updated you may very well end up with
~20% of the Fedora packages nearly
forever not being updated with proper
SPDX licenses as they are as likely or
not going to be forever be on re-build
auto-pilot (than
On Fri, May 3, 2024 at 9:40 AM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> The current change
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_4
>
> is planned to be the last one. At the end of this phase - scheduled to
> 2024-08-06 - we plan to mark this conversion as "done". My estimation is that
Dne 10. 05. 24 v 11:29 dop. Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
So we can now have packages with uppercase AND/ORs and packages with lowercase and/ors and we can no longer quickly
recognize SPDX expression by observing uppercase AND/ORs?
That does not sound like improvement to me :/
This is very very f
> SPDX v3 has been published. The biggest change for us is that license
> expression
> allows lowercase operators (and, or, with).
Worth noting is that the spec [0] says thse should be
either all-lowercase or ALL-UPPERCASE:
> License expression operators (AND, and, OR, or, WITH and with)
> shoul
On 10. 05. 24 10:55, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
Hot news:
SPDX v3 has been published. The biggest change for us is that license
expression allows lowercase operators (and, or, with). This got into the
specification because of your (Fedora maintainers) feedback!
So we can now have packages wit
Dne 03. 05. 24 v 10:44 dop. Tim Landscheidt napsal(a):
Maybe I misunderstood the original post, but I did not per-
ceive the intent of the data's publication to be informative
and useful, but to motivate (converting the licenses).
This.
And to provide at least some estimates. When we started w
Dne 03. 05. 24 v 1:59 dop. Gary Buhrmaster napsal(a):
Joking aside, I do agree the non-trivial conversions are
likely to be the hard ones, and there will be a very long
tail (many years more) for 100% as the work to deal with
some of those hard ones may require expertise that is
in limited or eve
John Reiser wrote:
>> New projection when we will be finished is 2025-04-06 (+5
>> days from last report). Pure linear approximation.
> Such a linear approximation, based on the entire tracked history,
> is the second worst possible estimate. (The worst possible estimate
> is the output of a r
On 4/26/24 11:20, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
New projection when we will be finished is 2025-04-06 (+5 days from last
report). Pure linear approximation.
Such a linear approximation, based on the entire tracked history,
is the second worst possible estimate. (The worst possible estimate
is the ou
On Thu, May 2, 2024 at 6:11 PM Matthew Miller wrote:
> Just eyeballing the prediction graph in the Google doc, it looks like the
> linear approximation is distorted by the big drop in "non-trivial" last
> September. And, the slope for "converted" is pretty steep before that, but
> significantly f
On Thu, May 2, 2024 at 8:11 PM Matthew Miller wrote:
>
> If we extrapolate linearly just from 2023-09-29 on, that gives an end-date
> of 2026-02-22. And linearly is probably optimistic too, given the classic
> "last 10% is 90% of the time" thing.
That sounds reasonable, but we'll also be enjoying
On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 08:20:43PM +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Graph of these data with the burndown chart:
>
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QVMEzXWML-6_Mrlln02axFAaRKCQ8zE807rpCjus-8s/edit?usp=sharing
[...]
> New projection when we will be finished is 2025-04-06 (+5 days from last
>
Dne 21. 03. 24 v 19:47 kloc...@fedoraproject.org napsal(a):
Those trivial substs probably would cover +90% of all packages in time in my
estimation.
See
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QVMEzXWML-6_Mrlln02axFAaRKCQ8zE807rpCjus-8s/edit#gid=0
The "trivial" conversion is possible for 499
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 2:53 PM Tomasz Kłoczko
>
> While I agree with some of what you're saying here, the problem is
> that it is, in fact, *not trivial* in many cases.
> Migrating the License tag from Callaway to SPDX identifiers is only
> the "easy" part of the transition.
> Re-reviewing pa
Dne 20. 03. 24 v 15:20 Fabio Valentini napsal(a):
Migrating the License tag from Callaway to SPDX identifiers is only
the "easy" part of the transition.
Re-reviewing package contents and re-classifying licenses is the
non-trivial part, and that definitely can't be scripted.
*nod*
1) Trivial ex
On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 2:53 PM Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
>
> On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 at 10:03, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
>>
>> Hot news:
>>
>> The last phase has been announce
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_4 and we will
>> proceed when approved with FESCO.
>
>
> I think
On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 at 10:03, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Hot news:
> The last phase has been announce
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_4 and we will
> proceed when approved with FESCO.
>
I think that generally you are wasting your man/hours posting such
statistics.
T
Going purely by upstream support status, yes, GConf2 should be retired;
it’s been obsolete for a decade.
Going by dependent packages, it’s not so simple. Some of these
dependencies are no doubt spurious, optional, or otherwise “removable;”
others are real hard dependencies from outdated-but-st
Dne 26. 02. 24 v 15:51 Richard Hughes napsal(a):
If the SPDX listing isn't using src.fedoraproject.org and instead
using something like bugzilla please yell. Being listed as maintaining
all those also makes the packager-dashboard basically useless for me
too. 🙂
I am using a script:
https://pag
On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 02:51:34PM +, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 at 15:07, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> > * 23711 spec files in Fedora
>
> I was looking through the list for any of my packages, and I've found
> that I'm "maintaining" long dead packages like
> https://src.fedorapro
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 at 09:44, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 at 15:44, Stephen Smoogen wrote:
> > I wonder if you have it from a group you are in or if it was the general
> creep of time that has added you to a lot of packages?
>
> I'm a packager and a provenpackager, so I'm a bit c
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 at 15:44, Stephen Smoogen wrote:
> I wonder if you have it from a group you are in or if it was the general
> creep of time that has added you to a lot of packages?
I'm a packager and a provenpackager, so I'm a bit confused why I'm on
so many packages as a separate committer.
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 at 09:54, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 at 15:07, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> > * 23711 spec files in Fedora
>
> I was looking through the list for any of my packages, and I've found
> that I'm "maintaining" long dead packages like
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rp
On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 at 15:07, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> * 23711 spec files in Fedora
I was looking through the list for any of my packages, and I've found
that I'm "maintaining" long dead packages like
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/GConf2
According to that I have "commit" ACLs, but I couldn't
Dne 05. 01. 24 v 8:14 Miroslav Suchý napsal(a):
To ease the migration I created a scantool-tookit reports for remaining
packages. It is available here
http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/spdx-reports/
Right now there are missing packages from ELN set and all other missing Fedora packages from A t
Dne 05. 01. 24 v 7:38 Miroslav Suchý napsal(a):
Hot news:
I forgot to mention one thing:
To ease the migration I created a scantool-tookit reports for remaining
packages. It is available here
http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/spdx-reports/
Right now there are missing packages from ELN set an
Am Do., 16. Nov. 2023 um 01:27 Uhr schrieb Kevin Kofler via devel <
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org>:
> Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> > Why Kristallnachte edition? On today's date at 1938, was i Kristallnacht
> > (Night of Broken Glass) - a pogrom against Jews in Germany. It was first
> > step where every
Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Why Kristallnachte edition? On today's date at 1938, was i Kristallnacht
> (Night of Broken Glass) - a pogrom against Jews in Germany. It was first
> step where every other step was worse than the previous one. It was
> basicaly a first step that lead to holocaust.
>
>
htt
On 10/13/23 08:15, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
Hot news:
There was new release of SPDX License list. If you want to see impact of Fedora work you can
check number of new licenses in recent releases and compare
https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/releases
and compare it with content of the rel
On 10/13/23 2:46 PM, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
On Fri, Oct 13 2023 at 08:15:39 AM +0200, Miroslav Suchý
wrote:
> Scancode-toolkit is not yet in Fedora, but you can instal it form PyPI:
>
> $ pip install scancode-toolkit
> $ ~/.local/bin/scancode --license --html /tmp/spdx.html .
>
I
On Fri, Oct 13 2023 at 08:15:39 AM +0200, Miroslav Suchý
wrote:
Scancode-toolkit is not yet in Fedora, but you can instal it form
PyPI:
$ pip install scancode-toolkit
$ ~/.local/bin/scancode --license --html /tmp/spdx.html .
I attempted this, but unfortunately it depedns on intbit
On 13-10-2023 08:15, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
Reviewers wanted: Package review of scancode-toolkit still need 3
dependencies to be review
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2235055
I took up three of those reviews, but they have been idling ever since...
-- Sandro
__
Dne 03. 10. 23 v 9:31 John Reiser napsal(a):
Especially because texlive was such an outlier, then any linear estimate
should state the starting and ending dates that were used for the projection.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QVMEzXWML-6_Mrlln02axFAaRKCQ8zE807rpCjus-8s/edit#gid=0
S
New projection when we will be finished is 2024-08-06. Pure linear
approximation.
Especially because texlive was such an outlier, then any linear estimate
should state the starting and ending dates that were used for the projection.
Similar to financial statistics, it might be better
to use a
On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 3:03 AM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Can I ask for additional help? Robert-André packaged scancode-toolkit for
> Fedora. This is license-check on steroids. Very useful and powerful tool. But
> it has lots of dependencies. Robert packaged them too.
That's great news!
Richard
I forgot to add one important piece of news about rust packages:
Because Fabio reported that all crates (rust-*) has been migrated. I added all rust-* packages that has "valid as SPDX
but no changelog entry" to ignore list
https://pagure.io/copr/license-validate/blob/main/f/ignore-packages.txt
On 9/2/23 5:32 AM, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
Dne 02. 09. 23 v 13:07 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a):
"python-lit warning: valid as old and new and no changelong entry, please check"
The License string is valid as both the old-style Fedora license and a SPDX
expression, and the tooling did n
Dne 02. 09. 23 v 13:07 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a):
"python-lit warning: valid as old and new and no changelong entry, please check"
The License string is valid as both the old-style Fedora license and a SPDX
expression, and the tooling did not match anything in the changelog that woul
On Sat, Sep 02, 2023 at 02:39:14AM -0700, Tom Stellard wrote:
> Hi,
>
> What does this message mean:
>
> "python-lit warning: valid as old and new and no changelong entry, please
> check"
The License string is valid as both the old-style Fedora license and a SPDX
expression, and the tooling did
Hi,
What does this message mean:
"python-lit warning: valid as old and new and no changelong entry, please check"
-Tom
On 9/1/23 01:33, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
Two weeks ago we had:
* 23030 spec files in Fedora
* 29469license tags in all spec files
* 16716 tags have not been converted to SP
Dne 28. 08. 23 v 15:36 Richard Fontana napsal(a):
As for + being valid SPDX syntax, can that be supported by
fedora-license-validate or whatever the tool is called today?
That's probably a good idea, though it would seem to be predicated on
us documenting that any "allowed" license identifier is
On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 8:30 AM Fabio Valentini wrote:
> What's the commended approach for packages that use deprecated
> identifiers then? I would rather not just convert "GPL-2.0" to
> "GPL-2.0-or-later" or "GPL-2.0-only", since it's almost always not
> obvious which one was originally intended
On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 4:39 AM Jilayne Lovejoy wrote:
>
> Top-posting a few comments related to this thread in total (instead of
> multiple responses to separate posts) and in hopes that people will be more
> likely to see/read :)
>
> As to Rust saying MPL-2.0+ is invalid - this is likely becau
Top-posting a few comments related to this thread in total (instead of
multiple responses to separate posts) and in hopes that people will be
more likely to see/read :)
As to Rust saying MPL-2.0+ is invalid - this is likely because Rust
thinks of the SPDX License List as *only* what is this pa
Dne 23. 08. 23 v 21:39 Richard Fontana napsal(a):
We are only treating the
*GPL family differently because of SPDX's (possibly unfortunate)
decision to do the same.
But technically
| GPL-2.0-or-later+
|
|is a valid SPDX string. Right?
|
--
Miroslav Suchy, RHCA
Red Hat, Manager, Packit and
On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 5:08 PM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
>
> Dne 22. 08. 23 v 22:55 Richard Fontana napsal(a):
> > The use of `+` is documented at
> > https://spdx.github.io/spdx-spec/v2-draft/SPDX-license-expressions/
> > (there's probably a more recent version)
> >
> >
> > D.3 Simple license expre
Dne 22. 08. 23 v 22:55 Richard Fontana napsal(a):
The use of `+` is documented at
https://spdx.github.io/spdx-spec/v2-draft/SPDX-license-expressions/
(there's probably a more recent version)
D.3 Simple license expressions
A simple is composed one of the following:
An SPDX License List Short
On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 4:44 PM Fabio Valentini wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 10:39 PM Richard Fontana wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 3:06 PM Fabio Valentini
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 1:21 PM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> >
> > > > rust-bitmaps warning: not valid ne
On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 10:39 PM Richard Fontana wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 3:06 PM Fabio Valentini wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 1:21 PM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
>
> > > rust-bitmaps warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please
> > > check
> >
> > This uses MPL-2.0
On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 3:06 PM Fabio Valentini wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 1:21 PM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> > rust-bitmaps warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please
> > check
>
> This uses MPL-2.0 or later, denoted as "MPL-2.0+". It looks like an
> SPDX identifier, but i
On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 7:21 AM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
>
> Dne 22. 08. 23 v 1:08 Fabio Valentini napsal(a):
>
> On Sun, Aug 20, 2023 at 9:11 AM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
>
> New projection when we will be finished is 2025-01-11 (we are slowing down.
> Again. :( ). Pure linear approximation.
>
> It mi
On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 10:28 PM Richard Fontana wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 9:08 AM Vít Ondruch wrote:
> >
> >
> > Dne 22. 08. 23 v 13:21 Miroslav Suchý napsal(a):
> >
> > 2) rust-btrd:
> > License: GPL-2.0
> >
> > This is not on SPDX list, it should be either GPL-2.0-only or
> > GPL-2.0
On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 9:08 AM Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
>
> Dne 22. 08. 23 v 13:21 Miroslav Suchý napsal(a):
>
> 2) rust-btrd:
> License: GPL-2.0
>
> This is not on SPDX list, it should be either GPL-2.0-only or GPL-2.0-or-later
>
>
> This is not on SPDX list *anymore*. It used to be valid identifier
On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 9:05 PM Fabio Valentini wrote:
>
(snip)
> Looks like there are 7 packages that I can fix later today:
>
> - rust-docopt
> - rust-procs
> - rust-rustcat
> - rust-tokei
> - rust-tree-sitter
> - rust-tree-sitter-cli
> - rust-varlink-cli
rust-docopt, rust-rustcat, rust-tokei
Dne 22. 08. 23 v 21:05 Fabio Valentini napsal(a):
There's four packages that use "MPL-2.0+" which is not a valid SPDX identifier.
Not sure what to do about them, since I don't want to ignore upstream
license specification and change them to just "MPL-2.0".
I checked the sized-chunks
https://cr
On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 1:21 PM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
>
> Dne 22. 08. 23 v 1:08 Fabio Valentini napsal(a):
>
> On Sun, Aug 20, 2023 at 9:11 AM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
>
(snip)
Thanks for running the checks! I looked at all the packages you listed.
> I run the statistics for rust-* only. And when
On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 9:12 AM Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
>
> Dne 22. 08. 23 v 15:07 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
>
>
> Dne 22. 08. 23 v 13:21 Miroslav Suchý napsal(a):
>
> 2) rust-btrd:
> License: GPL-2.0
>
> This is not on SPDX list, it should be either GPL-2.0-only or GPL-2.0-or-later
>
>
> This is not on
Dne 22. 08. 23 v 15:07 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
Dne 22. 08. 23 v 13:21 Miroslav Suchý napsal(a):
|2) r||ust-btrd: License: ||GPL-2.0|
This is not on SPDX list, it should be either |GPL-2.0-only or
||GPL-2.0-or-later|
This is not on SPDX list *anymore*. It used to be valid identifier n
Dne 22. 08. 23 v 13:21 Miroslav Suchý napsal(a):
|2) r||ust-btrd: License: ||GPL-2.0|
This is not on SPDX list, it should be either |GPL-2.0-only or
||GPL-2.0-or-later|
This is not on SPDX list *anymore*. It used to be valid identifier not
long ago. I am afraid that this identifies is
Dne 22. 08. 23 v 1:08 Fabio Valentini napsal(a):
On Sun, Aug 20, 2023 at 9:11 AM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
New projection when we will be finished is 2025-01-11 (we are slowing down.
Again. :( ). Pure linear approximation.
It might not be as bad as you think!
All rust-* packages had been exclude
On Sun, Aug 20, 2023 at 9:11 AM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
>
> New projection when we will be finished is 2025-01-11 (we are slowing down.
> Again. :( ). Pure linear approximation.
It might not be as bad as you think!
All rust-* packages had been excluded from tracking since the start,
so the progre
Dne 06. 08. 23 v 10:26 Barry Scott napsal(a):
On 05/08/2023 08:07, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
Tip of the day:
Do you want to validate your License string? Use: license-validate
"$YOUR_LICENSE_STRING"
I dnf installed license-validate on F38
Then run it to check a license and it does this:
On 05/08/2023 08:07, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
Tip of the day:
Do you want to validate your License string? Use: license-validate
"$YOUR_LICENSE_STRING"
I dnf installed license-validate on F38
Then run it to check a license and it does this:
$ /usr/bin/license-validate BSD
No terminal def
Dne 05. 08. 23 v 8:52 Gavin Henry napsal(a):
* Progress: 41.04% ██ 100%
What tool generated the above? Looks nice.
https://mitchelpl.github.io/Progress-Bar-Generator/
--
Miroslav Suchy, RHCA
Red Hat, Manager, Packit and CPT, #brno, #fedora-buildsys
> * Progress: 41.04% ██ 100%
>
>
What tool generated the above? Looks nice.
>
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedora
Dne 19. 05. 23 v 13:01 Daniel P. Berrangé napsal(a):
https://pagure.io/copr/license-validate/blob/main/f/ignore-packages.txt
Either pull-request or email to me is fine.
The 'yajl' package uses the ISC license, and the Fedora & SPDX names
match, so no update is required. Please add to the ignore
On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 08:23:51AM +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> If your package does not have neither git-log entry nor spec-changelog entry
> mentioning SPDX and you know your license tag matches SPDX formula, you can
> put your package on ignore list
>
> https://pagure.io/copr/license-validate
V Fri, May 05, 2023 at 09:10:54PM +0200, Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
> Now it uses SPDX identifiers, but lowercase ors, should probably be uppercase
> ORs.
>
I corrected it in perl-Exporter-Tidy-0.08-28.fc39.
-- Petr
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Dne 05. 05. 23 v 21:46 Artur Frenszek-Iwicki napsal(a):
Now it uses SPDX identifiers, but lowercase ors, should probably be uppercase
ORs.
Yea. I've been reading through the spec lately, since I want to add proper SPDX
support to my project,
and it says joiners should be uppercase and parsers
1 - 100 of 146 matches
Mail list logo
