re: the exception for shipping license files

Should we consider the Debian approach? They have /usr/share/common-licenses as part of base-files and packages can refer to that for the full license text

example Debian usage, for GPL 2: ` On Debian systems, the complete text of the GNU General Public License version 2 can be found in "/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2".

For us I could imagine we want to use SPDX license identifiers as the directory name (or the prefix of which in case of, say, GPL-2.0-only and GPL-2.0-or-later)

Then the R packaging guidelines can use a similar wording and point to the directori(es) in question

It would be an interesting system-wide proposal. Meanwhile, at a smaller scale, this is what R does with its extensions, so I added a note to clarify where to find these full texts.

A check has been added to ensure that a package declared as noarch contains no shared library, and vice versa. Otherwise, the build fails with an informative error message.

• Implementation
• Comment added to the guidelines
• Comment added to the change proposal

The new macros are available in the latest release of R-rpm-macros, v1.3.0. Requests for adding R-srpm-macros to the default BRs are waiting for the committee discussion here:

• Rawhide: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/redhat-rpm-config/pull-request/349
• EPEL 10: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/epel-rpm-macros/pull-request/88
• EPEL 9: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/epel-rpm-macros/pull-request/89

Change proposal approved by FESCo: https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3505

PR merged.

The addition of R-srpm-macros to the default BR of EPEL 9 and 10 was merged, but there is are no new updates. It would be great if someone with superpowers could please:

• Merge this also in EPEL 10.1
• Build new releases of epel-rpm-macros for EPEL 9, 10, 10.1

I'll take care of it.

@ngompa Kind reminder. :)