On 17. 05. 22 17:06, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
Dne 17. 05. 22 v 16:59 Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
> Thanks for the explanation. Could this be explicitly written in the change
> proposal?
Yes. I will amend the proposal with FAQ posted in this thread.
> Also, when you say "after F38 branching", does that mean it will not be
> allowed in f35, f36 and f37 branches?
No. Old branches i.e. f35, f36 and f37 will keep using the old short names. No
change there. The same for epel9-.
> Do we need to %if-%else it in the spec file? I recall some discussion about
> this on the legal list, but I see no guidelines proposed here.
If you maintain one spec for all branches then you will need %if-%else. And
yes, it works.
I just got an idea. Do I assume right that while the old Fedora tags -> SPDX
mapping is ambiguous, but the reverse is well defined? If that's the case, can
we make a macro that would:
1. Validate an SPDX expression for correct syntax, errors if invalid
2. On Fedora > X || RHEL > Y returns the input unchanged
3. On older releases, converts all names from the input to the old names
(possibly de-duplicating matching groups)
You would use it like this:
License: %{spdx BSD-3-Clause and BSD-2-Clause}
This would evaluate to either of the following depending on the release:
License: BSD-3-Clause and BSD-2-Clause
or
License: BSD
Does that make sense? If we package spdx2fedora data in a Lua-readbale form, I
believe I can draft a naïve implementation of that macro.
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok