docker / docker/docker-ce-packaging
rpm: evaluate uses of `%license` macro
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Makefile
- Stars
- 209
- Forks
- 164
- Avg merge
- 2h 24m
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 4
Description
We currently only use it in a single package; do we need to do so for other packages, or is it implicit / automatic?
One thing we should also look into; I noticed that we add an explicit
%licensemacro for the Compose plugin docs;
https://github.com/docker/docker-ce-packaging/blob/e47d6372bc61efecd4ee9c3ff420d09798b0cad6/rpm/SPECS/docker-compose-plugin.spec#L50-L51But we don't do this for other packages. It's possible that (given the standard naming used) this happens automatically, but perhaps we should look if additional things should be added.
Originally posted by @thaJeztah in #1112
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start with rpm/SPECS/docker-compose-plugin.spec around the explicit %license entry, then compare the other package spec files under rpm/SPECS. Check whether license files are included automatically for the other packages and determine which specs, if any, need corresponding entries.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- docker
- Domain
- build-system
- Issue type
- Refactor
- Difficulty
- 4/5
- Estimated time
- 3-5 days
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 35/100