+License: GPL-3.0+

can you please use SPDX-3.0 syntax? GPL-3.0-or-later

Also, there is no LICENSE/COPYING packaged as part of the rpm

No problem about the SPDX-3.0 syntax, but I have some doubts about how to include the LICENSE file. The package just install a script in /usr/lib/obs/service together with its .service doc file. For the LICENSE what should I do? something like installing a file called replace_using_package_version.LICENSE with the GPL license or create a subfolder specific for the package even if it is just for holding the license.

What you think is best?

Thanks

Dominique Leuenberger (dimstar) - about 6 years ago

reviewer

I assume you have a filed called COPYING or so in your tarball (which should be the case, after all, for GPL stuff, you have to distribute the license text)

so all you have to add in the files section is: %license COPYING

(for suse_version < 1500, you might want %doc COPYING)

---

David Cassany (dcassany) - about 6 years ago

author source maintainer

Just superseded with another request 589240

apropos: the tarball should also, preferably, be either referenced by a full URL, or be generated by source service (obs_scm or tar_scm)

I'd prefer to leave it as is, if no big deal. This is way it all can be done with setuptools (create tarball, build and install), which is quite handy for development.

Dominique Leuenberger (dimstar) - about 6 years ago

reviewer

problem here is that 0.0.1 is no known reference in git: so in fact there is totally no way to relate this package to what is on github :(

---

David Cassany (dcassany) - about 6 years ago

author source maintainer

all right, you convinced me. Going that change :)

---

Dominique Leuenberger (dimstar) - about 6 years ago

reviewer

\o/ victory :P

---

David Cassany (dcassany) - about 6 years ago

author source maintainer

Hi I was wondering if the SR 589310 I did is more in line of what you expected from the tar_scm service.