On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 2:36 AM, François Cami <fcami@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 11:19 PM, Justin Forbes <jforbes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 2:19 PM, stan <stanl-fedorauser@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 10:55:39 -0500 >>> Bruno Wolff III <bruno@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>>> I had filed a bug (1564745) for this a day earlier. >>> >>> Sorry about that. I did a search, and when the top result was the >>> issue, I didn't look further. >>> >>>> One option would be to change the name to match the kernel version. >>>> Another option would be put it in kernel instead of kernel-core. >>>> Another option would be to have a versioned name in kernel-core and >>>> a symlink to it with the normal name in kernel. >>> >>> I vote for one. There's a file for each installed kernel, and upon >>> kernel removal, it just disappears without any checks to see if there >>> are other kernels needing the file. >> >> I would be happy to hear more feedback on this from people. I am >> trying to decide on the best course to take (this file changes rarely >> and last changed in 2005). I plan to put something in place by rc1 >> next Monday. > > I'd lean towards having COPYING in the kernel subpackage and > installing it in a versioned directory - trading a very small amount > of disk space for upgrade safety and simplicity. I think the idea of naming the file COPYING-$kver might be better than putting it in the versioned kernel directory. Simply because users know that '/usr/share/licenses/<pkg>' contains licensing information. _______________________________________________ kernel mailing list -- kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
