Hi Fedora legal and packaging,
I'm cross-posting this, as I think it's relevant to both groups.
The current policy for filling out the license field of the spec file
(as described at
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelin…
) states, "The License: field refers to the licenses of the contents of
the binary rpm. When in doubt, ask."
As we consider how to improve documentation related to Fedora licensing,
it would be helpful to hear people's thoughts on the following:
1) how do you (package maintainers) interpret this policy in practice?
2) what further information/documentation about this policy would be
helpful?
3) should this policy be different, and if so, how?
4) any other related thoughts or observations
Thanks!
Jilayne
Hi,
During review of a package I submitted [1], the reviewer asked me to
move running an `ant` script from %prep to %build.
However, I feel that step belongs in %prep for two reasons:
1. It's a preparatory step for the Python build that follows
The `ant` job provides codec mappings (from Java Charsets), which are
subsequently used in the Python package. The process is described in the
CodecMapper README [2].
2. It would be (needlessly?) more complicated to do that in %build
I need to prep the sources and move stuff around for the Python package
to live at the top level, before calling `%pyproject_buildrequires`,
which is done before %build.
The actual Python package, from which the PyPI sdist and wheel are
produced lives in a sub directory of the CodecMapper repository [3].
Unfortunately, the PyPI sdist is incomplete. That's why I'm using the
GitHub sources.
I'd appreciate any guidance with regards to permissibility and/or
alternative approaches.
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2244402
[2] https://github.com/roskakori/CodecMapper#codecmapper
[3] https://github.com/roskakori/CodecMapper/tree/master/ebcdic
Cheers,
--
Sandro
FAS: gui1ty
IRC: Penguinpee
Elsewhere: [Pp]enguinpee
