On 24. 12. 21 1:57, Ben Beasley wrote:
I’m aware that pyproject-rpm-macros can handle license files in many
> %pyproject_save_files can automatically mark license files with %license
> macro and language (*.mo) files with %lang macro and appropriate language
> code. Only license files declared via PEP 639 License-Field field are
> detected. PEP 639 is still a draft and can be changed in the future.
(I also know that there are some packages where no license file is marked, or
where additional license files are needed, and it’s best to verify with “rpm
-qL -p …” before relying on this feature. That’s not at issue here.)
In a package review, it was suggested that, even when pyproject_files includes
a license file installed in the dist-info directory and marked with %license,
an explicit installation of the license file with a relative path, such as
> %license LICENSE.txt
might still be needed—under the theory that the license file is supposed to be
installed in /usr/share/licenses.
This assumption is not true. I even recall asking somewhere wrt Python's
But I don't recall where. Might have been this list or legal.
The Licensing Guidelines simply say that %license must be used, and
I’m wondering if this question has come up before and if anyone has insight
into whether or not pyproject-rpm-macros’s license file support is intended to
replace manual license file handling.
It is intended to replace manual license file handling but the result is only
as good as the upstream metadata.