Overview
Request 867421 accepted
- Update to version 20210128:
* Split out final comments in description
* Make a special exception for short %p* snippets
* Also split Conflict headers
* Keep the old require sorting
* Improve the performance of reorder_tags
* Fix merge_comments
* Do not split %if and section start
* Support multiline copyrights (for Firefox)
* Simplify how to calculcate the base_package
* Split tag values of certain tags
* Be careful with macros that appear between tags
* Replace SPDX mapper with an advanced version
* Fix merging empty sections
* Allow before lines to commented tags
* Keep comments close to the original line
* Review some deltas in the test suites that are acceptable for now
* Parse more into the description - basically everything for now
* Fix Release tag
* Add an empty line before each section
* Map SPDX licenses
* Fix more test cases
* Adopt some test cases and fix some others
* Reorder tags that are below each other
* Fix whitespace
* Little progress
* Add test cases for spec-file cleaner (with current output)
* Use perltidy like Cavil
* Remove patch_license - old helper script for mass migration
* Test case for issue 19
Request History
coolo created request
- Update to version 20210128:
* Split out final comments in description
* Make a special exception for short %p* snippets
* Also split Conflict headers
* Keep the old require sorting
* Improve the performance of reorder_tags
* Fix merge_comments
* Do not split %if and section start
* Support multiline copyrights (for Firefox)
* Simplify how to calculcate the base_package
* Split tag values of certain tags
* Be careful with macros that appear between tags
* Replace SPDX mapper with an advanced version
* Fix merging empty sections
* Allow before lines to commented tags
* Keep comments close to the original line
* Review some deltas in the test suites that are acceptable for now
* Parse more into the description - basically everything for now
* Fix Release tag
* Add an empty line before each section
* Map SPDX licenses
* Fix more test cases
* Adopt some test cases and fix some others
* Reorder tags that are below each other
* Fix whitespace
* Little progress
* Add test cases for spec-file cleaner (with current output)
* Use perltidy like Cavil
* Remove patch_license - old helper script for mass migration
* Test case for issue 19
factory-auto added opensuse-review-team as a reviewer
Please review sources
factory-auto accepted review
Check script succeeded
licensedigger accepted review
ok
dimstar accepted review
dimstar_suse set openSUSE:Factory:Staging:E as a staging project
Being evaluated by staging project "openSUSE:Factory:Staging:E"
dimstar_suse accepted review
Picked "openSUSE:Factory:Staging:E"
dimstar_suse added factory-staging as a reviewer
Being evaluated by group "factory-staging"
dimstar_suse accepted review
Unstaged from project "openSUSE:Factory:Staging:E"
dimstar_suse set openSUSE:Factory:Staging:E as a staging project
Being evaluated by staging project "openSUSE:Factory:Staging:E"
dimstar_suse accepted review
Picked "openSUSE:Factory:Staging:E"
dimstar_suse accepted review
Staging Project openSUSE:Factory:Staging:E got accepted.
dimstar_suse approved review
Staging Project openSUSE:Factory:Staging:E got accepted.
dimstar_suse accepted request
Staging Project openSUSE:Factory:Staging:E got accepted.
Eeks. Breaks for example LibreOffice, License MPL-2.0+ invalid
Hmm, the license format is valid, the license is not - I need to fix the parser then
said parser is in rpmlint though
created request id 868320 for rpmlint
Removing the LICENSE+ breaks packages, as rpmlint pulls in this as valid list
I started looking at the results of using this newer version and find that for multibuild packages, the initial line in the spec file "header comment", which reads:
spec file for package foo
gets modified to be
spec file for package foo%{name_suffix}
(depending on how the spec file sets up the macro for the line): Name: foo%{name_suffix} It might also end up being
spec file for package foo-bar
where bar is one of the variants of the package name specified in _multibuild
Is it right that this is getting re--formatted in this way? I'm not sure who would be interpreting this initial comment line on what package the spec file is for - and therefore what the proper format should be, but the fact that it isn't being consistent at least points to a bug from my perspective.
that comment is just a comment - and having it is pretty much incompatible to packages having multiple names. Dropping that comment would be the only logic consequence IMO. There is just no right value for your foo.
My aim was just to make it consistent.
Ok, if nothing is groking that comment (other than humans), I'm fine then. Thanks for the info. I've got a scripting planned for double checking the diff of the qemu spec file template and the final produced spec file after mods, plus running this osc service, so that has been my interest here.
Unignored: returned to active backlog.