| |
@@ -1264,7 +1264,7 @@
|
| |
%pyproject_install
|
| |
|
| |
# Here, "pello" is the name of the importable module.
|
| |
- %pyproject_save_files pello
|
| |
+ %pyproject_save_files -l pello
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
%check
|
| |
@@ -1522,6 +1522,17 @@
|
| |
e.g. `+%pyproject_save_files '*pytest'+`.
|
| |
As mentioned in the <<Explicit lists>> section,
|
| |
expressions like `+%pyproject_save_files '*'+` are not acceptable.
|
| |
+ +
|
| |
+ The macro has these options:
|
| |
+ +
|
| |
+ ** `+-l+`: Declare that a missing license should terminate the build.
|
| |
+ Packagers are encouraged to use this flag
|
| |
+ when the `%license file` is not manually listed in `%files`
|
| |
+ to avoid accidentally losing the file in a future version.
|
| |
+ ** `+-L+`: Explicitly disable the check for a missing license file.
|
| |
+ When the `%license` file is manually listed in `%files`,
|
| |
+ packagers can use this flag to ensure future compatibility
|
| |
+ in case the `-l` behavior eventually becomes a default.
|
| |
|
| |
[#pyproject_files]
|
| |
* `+%{pyproject_files}+`
|
| |
music
commented 3 months ago
Document the
-l/-Loptions to%pyproject_save_filesin the build macros section, and copy essential commentary and recommendations from theREADME.mdofpyproject-rpm-macros.Add
-lto thepython-pelloexample, but not to the empty spec file template since not all build backends specify license files in the metadata.I’m happy to accept feedback and revisions on this, of course.