Playground Repo Requirements Document

Marcela Mašláňová mmaslano at redhat.com
Thu Feb 27 12:53:06 UTC 2014


On 02/26/2014 06:54 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 04:40:40PM +0100, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
>>>
>> Thanks for the draft. I left comments to some points, but I'd rather
>> discuss it on next meeting, but because you probably won't be
>> there...
>>
> Some notes on the comments:
>
> The Legal comment.  I think you and I agree.  If the language is unclear,
> could you rerite it?  I basically am wanting to duplicate the guidelines for
> copr as theoretically, the requirements for this repo and copr repos can
> differ (the requirement that a non-free software but distributable license
> is not okay in copr is a fesco policy, not a RH Legal requirement.
> Similarly, the decision that Fedora itself doesn't ship non-free software is
> a Board decision.
>
What if we check licenses by licorice (scanning licenses)? It can't find 
every strange licence, but enough to pass legal requirement. My team 
tested it on bigger set of packages and output was quite good. We could 
set legal flag if bad license occurred in package and rest could go into 
repo without manual review.

https://github.com/tradej/licorice

> The Conflicts and replace comments.  I thought it had been decided that
> conflicts and replacements should not be allowed.  If that wasn't
> a decision we should probably kick those choices back down to the open
> questions.  I've done so now and we can discuss that on the Open Questions
> part of this thread/the next meeting.
>
> -Toshio
>
You are right we reached some conclusion on conflicts and replace, but 
what if we want for example new v8? We have terribly old v8 in current 
Fedora and conflicts might be a good solution in this case.

Marcela


More information about the env-and-stacks mailing list