============================================= #fedora-meeting-1: Fedora Packaging Committee =============================================
Meeting started by spot at 16:00:25 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2014-06-05/fpc.2014-06-05-... .
Meeting summary --------------- * Roll Call (spot, 16:00:31)
* software collections in Fedora - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/339 (spot, 16:05:52) * ACTION: abadger1999 to ping orc_fedo (LSB contact) about getting /opt/fedora registered with LANANA (abadger1999, 16:18:00)
* Go Packaging Guidelines Draft - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/382 (spot, 16:18:22) * ACTION: tabling until next week (spot, 16:18:55)
* Exception for bundled library FoX in exciting - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/400 (spot, 16:19:28) * ACTION: FoX package in review, exception no longer needed. (spot, 16:20:43)
* Please consider requiring AppData for all desktop applications - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/414 (spot, 16:21:21) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/414#comment:3 (abadger1999, 16:22:49) * In the guidelines about adding AppData, please include the requirement for metadata licenses to match the upstream code license if we're creating the AppData file. (abadger1999, 17:07:28)
* ruby193 in SCL - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/419 (spot, 17:10:34) * LINK:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Toshio/Multiple_packages_with_the_same_b... (abadger1999, 17:11:08) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AToshio% 2FMultiple_packages_with_the_same_base_name%28draft% 29&diff=379342&oldid=379341 (abadger1999, 17:14:42) * ACTION: abadger1999's draft approved (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) (spot, 17:19:49)
* PHP Guidelines change - composer/packagist registered packages - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/434 (spot, 17:20:34) * ACTION: draft approved (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) (spot, 17:31:53)
* %py3dir not removed by rpmbuild --clean - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/435 (spot, 17:32:31) * ACTION: tabled until we hear from the python maintainers (spot, 17:34:32)
* Open Floor (spot, 17:34:42)
Meeting ended at 17:38:22 UTC.
Action Items ------------ * abadger1999 to ping orc_fedo (LSB contact) about getting /opt/fedora registered with LANANA * tabling until next week * FoX package in review, exception no longer needed. * abadger1999's draft approved (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) * draft approved (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) * tabled until we hear from the python maintainers
Action Items, by person ----------------------- * abadger1999 * abadger1999 to ping orc_fedo (LSB contact) about getting /opt/fedora registered with LANANA * abadger1999's draft approved (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) * **UNASSIGNED** * tabling until next week * FoX package in review, exception no longer needed. * draft approved (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) * tabled until we hear from the python maintainers
People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * spot (115) * abadger1999 (98) * RemiFedora (39) * geppetto (28) * tibbs|w (24) * langdon (13) * zodbot (7) * Rathann (7) * SmootherFrOgZ (6) * tomprince (1)
Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4
.. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot
- Please consider requiring AppData for all desktop applications - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/414 (spot, 16:21:21)
- LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/414#comment:3 (abadger1999, 16:22:49)
- In the guidelines about adding AppData, please include the requirement for metadata licenses to match the upstream code license if we're creating the AppData file. (abadger1999, 17:07:28)
Well, I'm not quite sure I got the point. From [1]:
<metadata_license/>
The <metadata_license> tag is indicating the content license that you are releasing the AppData text file and screenshots as. This is not typically the same as the project license. (...) Permissible license codes include:
CC0-1.0 CC-BY-3.0 (...)
The old name for this tag was <licence/> and was changed for two reasons. It used the British English spelling, and also that it wasn't clear that the license given wasn't the project license, but rather the license for the metadata only.
<project_license/>
The <project_license> tag is indicating the licenses that you used for the application and any data or media files used. This is not typically the same as the metadata license. (...)
I.e. metadata license to be the same as upstream code license is not possible, giving that only *content* licenses are valid for this tag.
Also read:
This is not typically the same as the project license.
Giving that, I'd say your proposition is wrong.
[1] http://people.freedesktop.org/~hughsient/appdata/
On Sat, Jun 07, 2014 at 11:21:41AM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
- Please consider requiring AppData for all desktop applications - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/414 (spot, 16:21:21)
- LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/414#comment:3 (abadger1999, 16:22:49)
- In the guidelines about adding AppData, please include the requirement for metadata licenses to match the upstream code license if we're creating the AppData file. (abadger1999, 17:07:28)
Well, I'm not quite sure I got the point. From [1]:
<metadata_license/>
The <metadata_license> tag is indicating the content license that you are releasing the AppData text file and screenshots as. This is not typically the same as the project license. (...) Permissible license codes include:
CC0-1.0 CC-BY-3.0 (...)
The old name for this tag was <licence/> and was changed for two reasons. It used the British English spelling, and also that it wasn't clear that the license given wasn't the project license, but rather the license for the metadata only.
<project_license/>
The <project_license> tag is indicating the licenses that you used for the application and any data or media files used. This is not typically the same as the metadata license. (...)
I.e. metadata license to be the same as upstream code license is not possible, giving that only *content* licenses are valid for this tag.
I don't see anything in there that says that a license that's only applicable for content must be used. What I'm reading is that the license only applies to the AppData content.
But that license can be any license. According to the spec it could even be a proprietary license although that would mean that we wouldn't be able to use it in Fedora.
Also read:
This is not typically the same as the project license.
Giving that, I'd say your proposition is wrong.
That's not a prescription but an observation. It's also an observation that doesn't point to any references to back it up so I'm not sure where the data comes from.
If it should be prescriptive rather than a statement of fact, then there should be some jsutification instead. The justification for keeping the license the same as upstream is that:
1) upstream is more likely to take the changes if we conform to their licensing rather than force a new license for one file onto them.
2) it keeps all licensing information simpler if there's not a proliferation of licenses within the package.
-Toshio
On Thu, 05 Jun 2014 13:41:18 -0400, James Antill wrote:
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2014-06-05/fpc.2014-06-05-... .
- %py3dir not removed by rpmbuild --clean - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/435 (spot, 17:32:31)
- ACTION: tabled until we hear from the python maintainers (spot, 17:34:32)
17:33:01 <tibbs|w> I don't understand why 435 landed with us.
Because the FPC's Python Packaging Guidelines mention %py3dir, packagers have started using the directory, and the usage has raised questions during package review where special %clean sections have been noticed that tried to work around "the issue".
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
James Antill -
Michael Schwendt -
Miro Hrončok -
Toshio Kuratomi