Packaging python: "Invalid license" even though the license is listed on
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 -- Mathias Homann Mathias.Homann@openSUSE.org telegram: https://telegram.me/lemmy98 irc: [lemmy] on freenode and ircnet obs: lemmy04 gpg key fingerprint: 8029 2240 F4DD 7776 E7D2 C042 6B8E 029E 13F2 C102
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 -- Mathias Homann Mathias.Homann@openSUSE.org telegram: https://telegram.me/lemmy98 irc: [lemmy] on freenode and ircnet obs: lemmy04 gpg key fingerprint: 8029 2240 F4DD 7776 E7D2 C042 6B8E 029E 13F2 C102
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" -- Simon Lees (Simotek) http://simotek.net Emergency Update Team keybase.io/simotek SUSE Linux Adelaide Australia, UTC+10:30 GPG Fingerprint: 5B87 DB9D 88DC F606 E489 CEC5 0922 C246 02F0 014B
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 -- Lighten up, just enjoy life, smile more, laugh more, and don't get so worked up about things. Kenneth Branagh
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 -- Lighten up, just enjoy life, smile more, laugh more, and don't get so worked up about things. Kenneth Branagh
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 --
Auch meinen Namen aus der Liste streichen... Wollen wir mal darueber abstimmen, ob es fuer Linux von Vorteil war, von einem Produkt der Verstaendigen zum Produkt fuer den Massenkonsum zu werden? (-; [Bodo Kaelberer in suse-security]
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 -- Lighten up, just enjoy life, smile more, laugh more, and don't get so worked up about things. Kenneth Branagh
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 -- Looks like if the bios tried to boot the mouse... stupid cat :-)) [jdd in opensuse-testing]
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
participants (7)
-
Aaron Puchert -
Christian Boltz -
Dominique Leuenberger / DimStar -
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz -
Mathias Homann -
Simon Lees -
Stephan Kulow