-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 29
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
update version to 0.46.0 #213
Conversation
^ rebase off of #209 |
Build failed:
Looks like there's an issue with scanning licenses in the Pulled down license-list-data, ran
Locally seeing inconsistent errors between runs such as
I checked out 3737c49 and ran the scan just fine, since that doesn't scan the edit: I narrowed the remove of |
Oddly enough, the crate isn't published yet. I was working on integrating release automation like |
Thanks for the Since publish is now unset, license-scan is attempting to scan and attribute itself. Unfortunately, if the license data or output directory are in the same directory as the license-scanner, it treats these as belonging to its own source and becomes thoroughly confused. This is because license-scanner is searching through all sources of its targets searching for license files. I replicated your test command, and basically license-scan is seeing the license files it is writing for other projects, and then becoming alarmed because license-scan knows that its licenses are supposed to be MIT or Apache-2.0, so why is there a CCA license in there? In the SDK build itself it's failing for similar reasons. We copy the license data into the same directory as the license scan project so there's a bunch of miscellaneous licenses in the source directory for it to become confused about when it scans itself. The reason the error is inconsistent is due to whatever inode iteration ordering we happen to get when iterating through the "source" files. |
PR out to fix it here (still testing the build though): #214 I know these failures are very time consuming and am sorry @ginglis13! I tested |
nice @cbgbt ! Thanks for digging into this and thanks for the quick fix :D |
Signed-off-by: Gavin Inglis <[email protected]>
Building the core kit on x86_64 failed:
|
Yes, you need:
In:
|
Description of changes:
Testing done:
With the caveat of minor changes to 3 package specs: #213 (comment)
Terms of contribution:
By submitting this pull request, I agree that this contribution is dual-licensed under the terms of both the Apache License, version 2.0, and the MIT license.