Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-packaging (192 mails)
| < Previous | Next > |
Re: [opensuse-packaging] What is supposed to be in the License: field
- From: Juergen Weigert <jw@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 15:46:13 +0200
- Message-id: <20110429134612.GR11632@suse.de>
On Apr 29, 11 14:32:55 +0200, Dave Plater wrote:
Ah, cool. I meanwhile found another copy in openSUSE:11.4 deb
The default_check_regex differs, but not much.
$ osc cat multimedia:libs libkate libkate.spec | grep License:
License: BSD3c
License: BSD3c ; Other uncritical OpenSource License
License: BSD3c ; Other uncritical OpenSource License
License: BSD3c ; Other uncritical OpenSource License
License: BSD3c ; Other uncritical OpenSource License
You apparenly have a number of subpackages there, that still use
that language.
No idea. I have no auto-rejects logged for slv2.
home:plater:lilypond/lilypond
home:plater:blender/openCOLLADA
-> would get legal auto approve for Factory as they currently are.
I'd like to add the legal auto logic to rpmlint as warnings, so that we can
see them earlier. How about that?
cheers,
JW-
--
o \ Juergen Weigert paint it green! __/ _=======.=======_
<V> | jw@xxxxxxx back to ascii! __/ _---|____________\/
\ | 0911 74053-508 __/ (____/ /\
(/) | _____________________________/ _/ \_ vim:set sw=2 wm=8
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nuernberg)
SuSE. Supporting Linux since 1992.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Good. So this licensecheck is correct.
(Actually, I did not know such a thing exists. What do I need to install to
get it?)
rpm -qi rpmdevtools
Ah, cool. I meanwhile found another copy in openSUSE:11.4 deb
The default_check_regex differs, but not much.
No, comments do not make any difference.Please tell me the submit request number, and I'll look into it.I suspect that it's due to the comment I put before the license field that
upset the tool.
"# "Other uncritical OpenSource License" is no longer allowed in the License
field."
The request was sr#68588 and the new one with the extra 0x0D between theThanks for the numbers.
comment and the license field is sr#68822.
$ osc cat multimedia:libs libkate libkate.spec | grep License:
License: BSD3c
License: BSD3c ; Other uncritical OpenSource License
License: BSD3c ; Other uncritical OpenSource License
License: BSD3c ; Other uncritical OpenSource License
License: BSD3c ; Other uncritical OpenSource License
You apparenly have a number of subpackages there, that still use
that language.
... like slv2 which was submitted end of Jan. this year and is still being
tossed around
like a hot potato for a reason still unknown to me. ...
No idea. I have no auto-rejects logged for slv2.
... I'm fixing the openCOLLADA library package with a switch to
cmake and preparing the blender-2.57b release package. I still have
lillypond my other difficult package, which is just about to
release, to contend with and a pulse audio bug which has hit my
system.
home:plater:lilypond/lilypond
home:plater:blender/openCOLLADA
-> would get legal auto approve for Factory as they currently are.
Not your fault, excuse my moaning, the license check is still new
but will eventually result in easier package maintenance. I see
packages that don't follow rules everyday but I don't have the time
to fix so I have to resist the temptation to touch them.
I'd like to add the legal auto logic to rpmlint as warnings, so that we can
see them earlier. How about that?
cheers,
JW-
--
o \ Juergen Weigert paint it green! __/ _=======.=======_
<V> | jw@xxxxxxx back to ascii! __/ _---|____________\/
\ | 0911 74053-508 __/ (____/ /\
(/) | _____________________________/ _/ \_ vim:set sw=2 wm=8
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nuernberg)
SuSE. Supporting Linux since 1992.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@xxxxxxxxxxxx
| < Previous | Next > |