https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2307489
--- Comment #2 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- Thank you for the review!
(In reply to Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) from comment #1)
XXX Looks good XXX APPROVED XXX
The only thing that I found was that the LICENSE may have been included twice---please do check that before importing.
- LICENSE seems to be included already---no need to re-include it explicitly
in %files?
In cases were the build backend doesn’t declare license files via the PEP 639 License-File field, the license file in the .dist-infor field doesn’t get automatically marked with %license:
/usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/snakemake_executor_plugin_flux-0.1.1.dist-info/LICENSE
This package uses poetry-core, which is one such build backend.
The usual practice is just to write
%license LICENSE
which gives an additional (properly indicated) license file
/usr/share/licenses/python3-snakemake-executor-plugin-flux/LICENSE
We can see that there is only one properly marked license file:
$ rpm -qL -p /path/to/python3-snakemake-executor-plugin-flux-0.1.1-1.fc42.noarch.rpm /usr/share/licenses/python3-snakemake-executor-plugin-flux/LICENSE
It’s technically possible to modify %{pyproject_files} using something like sed to add the annotation to the file in dist-info, but I have never seen it done, and I don’t think it would be a good practice. It would be too messy, with too much risk of error, for the tiny gain of avoiding one small duplicate file.