Hi,
I'm tripping over an "Invalid license" error with some python packages...
[ 57s] python-backports.csv.src: E: invalid-license (Badness: 100000) PSF-2.0 [ 57s] python2-backports.csv.noarch: E: invalid-license (Badness: 100000) PSF-2.0 [ 57s] python3-backports.csv.noarch: E: invalid-license (Badness: 100000) PSF-2.0 [ 57s] The specified license string is not recognized. Please refer to [ 57s] https://spdx.org/licenses/ for the list of known licenses and their exact [ 57s] spelling.
The thing is, "PSF-2.0" is in fact listed in that list of valid licenses.
What can I do?
Cheers MH
Hi Mathias!
On 2/25/21 1:05 PM, Mathias Homann wrote:
I'm tripping over an "Invalid license" error with some python packages...
[ 57s] python-backports.csv.src: E: invalid-license (Badness: 100000) PSF-2.0 [ 57s] python2-backports.csv.noarch: E: invalid-license (Badness: 100000) PSF-2.0 [ 57s] python3-backports.csv.noarch: E: invalid-license (Badness: 100000) PSF-2.0 [ 57s] The specified license string is not recognized. Please refer to [ 57s] https://spdx.org/licenses/ for the list of known licenses and their exact [ 57s] spelling.
The thing is, "PSF-2.0" is in fact listed in that list of valid licenses.
I assume that rpmlint in openSUSE uses this list [1] where PSF-2.0 is missing.
Adrian
Am 2021-02-25 13:07, schrieb John Paul Adrian Glaubitz:
Hi Mathias!
On 2/25/21 1:05 PM, Mathias Homann wrote:
I'm tripping over an "Invalid license" error with some python packages...
[ 57s] python-backports.csv.src: E: invalid-license (Badness: 100000) PSF-2.0 [ 57s] python2-backports.csv.noarch: E: invalid-license (Badness: 100000) PSF-2.0 [ 57s] python3-backports.csv.noarch: E: invalid-license (Badness: 100000) PSF-2.0 [ 57s] The specified license string is not recognized. Please refer to [ 57s] https://spdx.org/licenses/ for the list of known licenses and their exact [ 57s] spelling.
The thing is, "PSF-2.0" is in fact listed in that list of valid licenses.
I assume that rpmlint in openSUSE uses this list [1] where PSF-2.0 is missing.
Adrian
..then maybe rpmlint needs to have that bug fixed that makes it print out the wrong url to the list of licenses...?
Cheers Mathias
On 2/25/21 10:54 PM, Mathias Homann wrote:
Am 2021-02-25 13:07, schrieb John Paul Adrian Glaubitz:
Hi Mathias!
On 2/25/21 1:05 PM, Mathias Homann wrote:
I'm tripping over an "Invalid license" error with some python packages...
[ 57s] python-backports.csv.src: E: invalid-license (Badness: 100000) PSF-2.0 [ 57s] python2-backports.csv.noarch: E: invalid-license (Badness: 100000) PSF-2.0 [ 57s] python3-backports.csv.noarch: E: invalid-license (Badness: 100000) PSF-2.0 [ 57s] The specified license string is not recognized. Please refer to [ 57s] https://spdx.org/licenses/ for the list of known licenses and their exact [ 57s] spelling.
The thing is, "PSF-2.0" is in fact listed in that list of valid licenses.
I assume that rpmlint in openSUSE uses this list [1] where PSF-2.0 is missing.
Adrian
..then maybe rpmlint needs to have that bug fixed that makes it print out the wrong url to the list of licenses...?
Maybe, at a guess it just hasn't been patched to use our list rather then the upstream one.
At the same time it might be worth a bug for SUSE legal to add a mapping to our list for "PSF-2.0"
Am 26.02.21 um 00:51 schrieb Simon Lees:
At the same time it might be worth a bug for SUSE legal to add a mapping to our list for "PSF-2.0"
license.opensuse.org is an old page (and I thought Darix was handling to point it to where it fits). The README contains our latest list [even though it's not yet landed in Tumbleweed]: https://github.com/openSUSE/obs-service-format_spec_file
rpmlint gets it from there - and PSF is part of it. We just need to get this into Factory.
Greetings, Stephan
On Fri, 2021-02-26 at 07:46 +0100, Stephan Kulow wrote:
Am 26.02.21 um 00:51 schrieb Simon Lees:
At the same time it might be worth a bug for SUSE legal to add a mapping to our list for "PSF-2.0"
license.opensuse.org is an old page (and I thought Darix was handling to point it to where it fits). The README contains our latest list [even though it's not yet landed in Tumbleweed]: https://github.com/openSUSE/obs-service-format_spec_file
sad story - but you know it already: the SR for format-spec-file removes the legacy LICENSE+ writing style (in favor of -or-later), which is ok. But this list is then consumed by rpmlint, and license fails are a hard fail for Factory; so we get a ton of failures (the attempt to make *LICENSE+ valid was not correct, and never corrected since)
So I see two ways out: * Fix rpmlint to get the license list correctly spun up based on the shortened list in format-spec * re-add the LICENSE+ spelling in format-spec (and revert the broken fix-attempt in rpmlint)
Cheers, Dominique
Am 26.02.21 um 09:44 schrieb Dominique Leuenberger / DimStar:
So I see two ways out:
- Fix rpmlint to get the license list correctly spun up based on the
shortened list in format-spec
There was a slight misunderstanding about who would care about this, but let's fix this: created request id 875331
Greetings, Stephan
Hello,
Am Freitag, 26. Februar 2021, 07:46:15 CET schrieb Stephan Kulow:
license.opensuse.org is an old page (and I thought Darix was handling to point it to where it fits). The README contains our latest list [even though it's not yet landed in Tumbleweed]: https://github.com/openSUSE/obs-service-format_spec_file
So you are saying that license.opensuse.org should redirect to https://github.com/openSUSE/obs-service-format_spec_file/blob/master/ README.md instead of the current google doc document?
Please confirm (bonus points if you CC admin@o.o), and I'll get the redirect updated.
Regards,
Christian Boltz
Am 26.02.21 um 20:20 schrieb Christian Boltz:
Hello,
Am Freitag, 26. Februar 2021, 07:46:15 CET schrieb Stephan Kulow:
license.opensuse.org is an old page (and I thought Darix was handling to point it to where it fits). The README contains our latest list [even though it's not yet landed in Tumbleweed]: https://github.com/openSUSE/obs-service-format_spec_file
So you are saying that license.opensuse.org should redirect to https://github.com/openSUSE/obs-service-format_spec_file/blob/master/ README.md instead of the current google doc document?
Please confirm (bonus points if you CC admin@o.o), and I'll get the redirect updated.
Hi Christian,
The spreadsheet currently linked there is just the mapping from pre-SPDX format to SPDX - all the upstream SPDX is not in.
https://github.com/openSUSE/obs-service-format_spec_file/blob/master/README.... is indeed the more complete table.
Greetings, Stephan
Hello,
Am Freitag, 26. Februar 2021, 21:30:34 CET schrieb Stephan Kulow:
Am 26.02.21 um 20:20 schrieb Christian Boltz:
Am Freitag, 26. Februar 2021, 07:46:15 CET schrieb Stephan Kulow:
license.opensuse.org is an old page (and I thought Darix was handling to point it to where it fits). The README contains our latest list [even though it's not yet landed in Tumbleweed]: https://github.com/openSUSE/obs-service-format_spec_file
So you are saying that license.opensuse.org should redirect to https://github.com/openSUSE/obs-service-format_spec_file/blob/master /README.md instead of the current google doc document?
Please confirm (bonus points if you CC admin@o.o), and I'll get the redirect updated.
The spreadsheet currently linked there is just the mapping from pre-SPDX format to SPDX - all the upstream SPDX is not in.
https://github.com/openSUSE/obs-service-format_spec_file/blob/master/R EADME.md is indeed the more complete table.
OK, license.o.o redirect updated.
Regards,
Christian Boltz
Am 25.02.21 um 13:07 schrieb John Paul Adrian Glaubitz:
I assume that rpmlint in openSUSE uses this list [1] where PSF-2.0 is missing.
Adrian
Any idea how to get something added there? I've opened bug 1152572 a long time ago to get the LLVM-exception recognized by rpmlint, but that went nowhere. Maybe it wasn't the right approach.
I also filed a bug for the SUSE legal team earlier (1144953, these are not public), but that was also ignored. It doesn't block me, but it's a bit annoying perhaps.
Best regards, Aaron