Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Just ignore rpmlint there. :-) If you have proper Requires in place to > ensure the symlink targets will actually be installed, it's fine. I do, so I'll just ignore them. > Yes, it's called noarch subpackages and has been supported in Fedora for a > while. Just declare the subpackage as: > BuildArch: noarch > > Note that the main package MUST be arch-specific if you have any arch- > specific subpackages, you cannot have arch-specific subpackages of a noarch > package, only noarch subpackages of an arch-specific package. Ah. That's where I was going wrong. > /usr/<target> is the standard location for cross toolchains, and cross > toolchains (and ONLY cross toolchains) are allowed to use such a location > (though IIRC it never got officially codified in our guidelines because the > cross-compiler guidelines never got formalized; but de facto, the existing > cross compiler packages already use this). > > /usr/cross/<target> is entirely non-standard and IMHO a bad idea. Yeah. I was trying to avoid clashing with other toolchains, but I guess the name of the binary in /usr/bin/ is likely to do that anyway. Can rpmlint be altered to accept apparent <target>-named directories in /usr/? > There is no requirement that binaries have manpages in Fedora. Though in > this case, just link the manpage. > > The purpose of ld.bfd is that this is always the regular BFD-based GNU ld > whereas just ld can be e.g. gold. I see. > > (8) The package installs gpl.7.gz and similar common-looking manpages in > > man7. > > Is this a bad idea, just in case there's a conflict with another > > package wanting to do the same? > > Yes. Don't package this. We don't normally ship licenses as manpages. See > the next paragraph for what to do instead. > > > Is there/ should there be a common GPL licence text RPM with these > > files in it that RPMs can be made dependent on? > > Ship the license with %doc COPYING, in a package which is required by all > the other subpackages. (If given only a file name without a path, %doc > automatically creates a unique path for the package to ship the text file > in.) For legal reasons, every package MUST carry its license in at least one > subpackage, and ALL subpackages must either carry the license or Require one > of the subpackages which do. A common license package for the whole > distribution (like Debian does it) does NOT comply with the GPL. The > packages are not necessarily distributed as part of the distribution, and > the GPL explicitly requires every GPLed package to carry a copy of the GPL, > no matter whether the distribution already has one. Fair enough. Interestingly, the core binutils does not seem to comply with this: warthog>rpm -ql binutils-devel binutils | grep -i gpl warthog1>rpm -ql binutils-devel binutils | grep -i licen[cs]e warthog1>rpm -ql binutils-devel binutils | grep -i COPYING warthog1> David -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
