Re: Cygwin Mailing Lists Disabled? Blocking Package Uploads?

[Brian Inglis <Brian.Inglis@SystematicSw.ab.ca>]

On 2022-10-02 14:37, Jon Turney wrote:
> On 02/10/2022 19:13, Brian Inglis wrote:
>> On 2022-10-02 05:20, Jon Turney wrote:
>>> On 02/10/2022 08:23, Brian Inglis wrote:
>>>> Also I don't seem to be able to get on to any mailing list interface 
>>>> to re-enable email to perhaps check status via email in public inbox.
>>>
>>> I don't understand what this means.
>>
>> Email retries are often visible under Sourceware Public Inbox e.g.
>>
>> https://inbox.sourceware.org/cygwin-apps/202209252042.28PJfcQU021984-28PKg7eC017324-6W6R+pMrZmcI6pMNW8xKTw@public.gmane.org/T/#u 

> It was unintentional that email bounces were ending up there, and has 
> been fixed.

Darn! ;^>

>> Any chance of maybe just appending to an mbox cleared after 24 hours old?
> 
> It would probably just be easier to arrange for upload reports to go to 
> a new mailing list, if we that something that is really wanted...

Wouldn't help me with Cygwin blocks ;^<
Meant just append to a mbox file under ~ e.g. ~/.mbox?

>> I keep having to comment out LICENSE after updates to the latest SPDX 
>> keys, as it seems to block uploads!
> 
> The current situation is that a 'license:' key is not required in the 
> package hint, but if present, it's value must validate.
> 
> If you're having problems, please give an example of a something you 
> think is a valid SPDX license expression, but isn't accepted.

These had to be commented out recently:

../fortune-mod/fortune-mod.cygport:#LICENSE=BSD-4-Clause

../unifont/unifont.cygport:#LICENSE="GPL-2.0-with-font-exception AND 
OFL-1.1"

although after further checking, it should have been OR, and is now:

LICENSE="(GPL-2.0-with-font-exception OR OFL-1.1) AND Public-Domain AND 
GPL-2.0-or-later"

>> What are you using to validate licences in calm - PyPi spdx-tools?
> 
> I'm using license_expression
> 
> (See https://github.com/nexB/license-expression)

Thanks - will see what I can do with that.

>> Finally, do you have any advice on what to do about various US Public 
>> Domain sources like tz{code,data} about which SPDX.org is still having 
>> discussions?
>> I have submitted input asking them to add a tz/tzdb/zoneinfo PD 
>> licence instance, and/or also something for other generic US.gov PD 
>> sources, like they currently have for NIST, CC, Open Data Commons, 
>> Sax, and libselinux.
>> But they closed an issue from a US.gov entity asking for a generic 
>> US.gov PD licence for their documents!

> For our purposes, you may use the string 'Public-Domain', in cases where 
> no license applies because the material has been placed in the public 
> domain.

Great - will use.

-- 
Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

This email may be disturbing to some readers as it contains
too much technical detail. Reader discretion is advised.
[Data in binary units and prefixes, physical quantities in SI.]