On 13:20:47 Monday 07 November 2011 Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote:
> 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.
I have to make it clear that there are no guidelines that are stating that a
subpackage should require the main one for the license file. The guidelines
require the packager to do their work to set the javadoc properly not to
require the main package blindly.
Alex
> 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_Li
> censing
>
> --
> Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotnicky@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Software Engineer - Base Operating Systems Brno
>
> PGP: 7B087241
> Red Hat Inc. http://cz.redhat.com
--
java-devel mailing list
java-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/java-devel
