On Sun, 2007-11-25 at 20:11 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: > Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > > On Sun, 2007-11-25 at 19:45 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: > >> Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > >>> On Sun, 2007-11-25 at 22:27 +0530, Debarshi 'Rishi' Ray wrote: > >>>>> Like you said, the modified .star files can't be distributed, but the > >>>>> ADC data files are fine to package as is, under the "Redistributable, no > >>>>> modification permitted". > >>>> Does this mean I can have a package whose spec file generates the > >>>> .star file from the catalog, so that installing starplot-gliese3 > >>>> directly provides the .star file? (I think 'no'.) > >>> No, because we'd be distributing the .star files in that scenario. > >>> > >> What about a %post generating them under /var/lib ? I know this ain't pretty > >> but I think it would solve the license issue. > > > > Hmm, normally I'm against this, but if they were ghosted in the %files, > > the package would "own" them, and we wouldn't actually be distributing > > them. > > I've done a little more research and I strongly believe that install time > conversion is the answer. The data files in the format which we may distribute > are not modified in essence. starplot comes with a conversion program to change > them to its own format, I guess this is done once by a seperate conversion > program and not on the fly when loading for performance reasons, so the > converted files could be seen as cache files. As long as we're not distributing the .star files, and the files are owned by the package (and thus, removed upon uninstall), I'm ok with it. ~spot -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
