On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 09:36:47PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 2:43 PM, Richard Fontana <rfontana@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 11:36:05AM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote: > >> Hi Jason, > >> > >> On Wed, 2016-07-13 at 04:18 -0500, Jason Tibbitts wrote: > >> > However, RPM itself generates debuginfo packages automatically in a way > >> > that's not really controllable by the packager. These packages do not > >> > have dependencies on the base packages and will not generally include > >> > license files. > >> > >> I happen to be working on improvements to rpmbuild debuginfo packages: > >> https://taiga.fedorainfracloud.org/project/mjw-better-rpm-debuginfo-package-creation/kanban > >> If legal provides guidelines that might require rpmbuild changes then > >> please feel free to add a wishlist item or add me to the CC of any > >> bugzilla item. > > > > In my opinion rpmbuild debuginfo packages should include license > > files. > > > > I don't profess to be a lawyer, but since we already include the > license files in the main packages, and the debuginfo ones require the > main packages anyway, why do we need to have them in there too? When you say "the debuginfo ones require the main packages", doesn't that contradict what Jason Tibbitts said ("These packages do not have dependencies on the base packages")? I just verified that you can install a debuginfo package with dnf without installing the corresponding main package. Or am I misunderstanding something? Richard _______________________________________________ legal mailing list legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
