make sure %license is SPDX compatible #794
Conversation
``` $ askalono crawl LICENSE LICENSE License: MIT (original text) Score: 1.000 ``` https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 The changelog should propagate to dist-git as the SPDX migration initiative tracks 'spdx' string in changelogs. I'm at the SPDX hackfest right now and the guidance I got about the LICENSE Copyright line was: 1. it's meaningless and a waste of time to polish 2. only the "copyright" word has a meaning 3. the year is meaningless, hence I dropped it 4. the team name & authors is relevant so I updated it to match 100% what we have in the source files Signed-off-by: Tomas Tomecek <ttomecek@redhat.com>
|
Build failed. ✔️ pre-commit SUCCESS in 1m 44s |
|
I see 9:36 »GMT« on the failing test… can someone explain to me how did it get 5:36… |
|
you're right, what's going on here? 👀
someone's screwed up timezones badly |
|
@TomasTomecek I think it's time for the required checks to support logical expressions 🙃 especially since TF checks passed |
|
recheck |
|
Build failed. ✔️ pre-commit SUCCESS in 1m 41s |
|
Build failed. ✔️ pre-commit SUCCESS in 1m 46s |
this is what we are seeing in CI tests:
```
AssertionError: assert datetime.datetime(2020, 8, 31, 5, 36, 50) >=
datetime.datetime(2020, 8, 31, 7, 0)
```
For some reason, the date in CI is 31.8. 5:36 while our test is >= 7:00
locally works fine obviously
I don't have a motivation to track down the root cause, sorry.
I suspect timezones are the root cause.
Signed-off-by: Tomas Tomecek <ttomecek@redhat.com>
TomasTomecek
force-pushed
the
update-license
branch
from
dccc36b
to
f5d0197
Compare
|
Build succeeded. ✔️ pre-commit SUCCESS in 1m 42s |
|
Build succeeded (gate pipeline). ✔️ pre-commit SUCCESS in 1m 43s |
softwarefactory-project-zuul
bot
merged commit bc6f3eb
into
packit:main
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1
The changelog should propagate to dist-git as the SPDX migration
initiative tracks 'spdx' string in changelogs.
I'm at the SPDX hackfest right now and the guidance I got about the
LICENSE Copyright line was:
what we have in the source files