Excerpts from David Walluck's message of Fri Nov 04 21:39:13 +0100 2011:
> On 11/03/2011 12:36 PM, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote:
> > * Allow packager to override adding of "Requires: %{name}.." into
> > javadoc (we do this if we don't find license file). This is useful
> > when upstream has no separate license file
>
> First, the License is supposed to be in the RPM header. Second, that is
> already a Fedora policy. Third, most distros allow a common licenses
> packages that has the full license text.
If I read this correctly then you misunderstand our current licensing
guidelines[1]. Please read that small part before doing anything else.
It effectively means this:
a) *IF* source tarball has license, it has to be installed as %doc
b) In that case *all* sub-packages that *do not* require main package
have to include that license file as well.
Now we have several situations:
a) Package has license in one of standard licenses
- we generate javadoc, find the license file, install it. No requires
on main package. Ergo no problem
b) Package has license, but in place we can't find
- if there would be no modifications the macro would add Requires:
%{name}-%{version} etc. to javadoc to satisfy above guidelines.
After your suggestion and talking with Alex, I've come to conclusion
that it will be better to bail with error message in this case. This
will force packager to do one of these things:
%global __javadoc_license path/to/license/inside/tarball
or
c) Package has no license in separate file
In this case packager will define
%global __javadoc_no_license t
And we will ignore licensing completely. Does this work for you? I
guess I could prepare a few example spec files to better explain
different cases.
> You want the documentation to require the full set of binaries just to
> get the license file?
It would be the right thing to do from packaging guidelines point of
view. There can be no chance of automatically generating javadoc
package without license file if upstream provides this, since that
would be against guidelines. But bailing and forcing packager to
either set path to license file or tell us to ignore licensing works
just as well.
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Subpackage_Licensing
--
Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotnicky@xxxxxxxxxx>
Software Engineer - Base Operating Systems Brno
PGP: 7B087241
Red Hat Inc. http://cz.redhat.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- java-devel mailing list java-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/java-devel
