On 03/20/2009 04:06 PM, Lyos Gemini Norezel wrote: > Pity. A %license (ie., like the %doc) field would be nice to have. Indeed. This is where I think the most interesting work needs to be done. Once rpm knows that a %license file is a special type of %doc that gets installed even if --excludedocs is passed, we have solved one of the big issues for the OLPC folks. >> * Compare it against the set of known "Generic" licenses. >> * If it is an exact match, replace it with a symlink to the Generic >> license. >> >> Now, the problem is that if you do this in yum, you'll break rpm >> verification of any package handled in such a way. > > Oh? Why is that? Well, in order for this to work, the license text has to be a real file in the binary RPM manifest. If yum replaced that actual file with a symlink, it will no longer match the binary RPM manifest, and rpm -V will report that the file has been changed (which, is true, but of little relevance in such a scenario). ~spot -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
