On 11/07/2011 06:22 AM, Alexander Kurtakov wrote: > 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. It's either that or include it as %doc in the javadoc package itself, according to what I was just linked to <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Subpackage_Licensing>. I don't know who wrote that or how it possibly satisfies any legal requirement better than other methods---especially since following that section on the wiki is the `License: field' section that I also mentioned. What is gained by placing a license file in every package? If the goal is just to make sure that the license text is present on the system, this could be achieved in other ways if it's a standard license. If the packager determines that is it one of the standard licenses, I still don't understand what is gained by copying it over and over. I hope that the policy is based on a specific legal requirement. -- java-devel mailing list java-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/java-devel
