On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 11:19 AM Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On 17. 05. 22 17:08, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 11:02 AM Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 17. 05. 22 16:52, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
>>> Dne 17. 05. 22 v 16:18 Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
>>>> So, is it actually allowed to use SPDX identifiers when this phase is
>>>> activated, or not?
>>>
>>> SPDX identifiers will be allowed when all these conditions will be met:
>>>
>>> * Change approved by FESCO
>>>
>>> * after F38 branching
>>>
>>> * documentation with conversion chart will be ready
>>>
>>> This is posted a lot of time ahead, so people can prepare in advance.
>>
>> Thanks for the explanation. Could this be explicitly written in the change
>> proposal? Also, when you say "after F38 branching", does that mean it
will not
>> be allowed in f35, f36 and f37 branches? 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.
>>
>
> It is not technically possible for us to separate the Bodhi update
> checks in this manner, so the goal will be to add approved SPDX
> identifiers to the list, rather than removing Fedora identifiers.
>
> That means once the tooling changes are in place, SPDX identifiers
> will be permitted across all update code streams supported by the
> Fedora Project.
>
> From my perspective, we will be many years (as in we're likely talking
> RHEL 11 or RHEL 12 timeframe) before even *deprecating* Fedora
> identifiers.
I see. Your answers seem to contradict with Miroslav's -- considering you are
both listed as the change owners here, I suggest you talk to each other ASAP :)
Miroslav does not know that our update and testing infra cannot handle
splits on Fedora releases. I know that because I've worked on it
before when we were enabling weak and rich dependencies in the
infrastructure for Rust years ago.
--
真実はいつも一つ!/ Always, there's only one truth!