https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2235768 Jonathan S. <js-fedora@xxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(benson_muite@emai | |lplus.org) --- Comment #5 from Jonathan S. <js-fedora@xxxxxx> --- Honestly, I'm fine with not installing the license files at all if the Licenses: tag is enough. In general, I see very little point in having 1000s of copies of the same licenses in /usr/share/licenses. However, it seems that Fedora wants it this way: One file per package. Wouldn't adding such a -licenses package defeat the point of having /usr/share/licenses/libobjfw as well as /usr/share/licenses/ofhttp? I guess the entire idea is that you can just take the package name and get to the license, right? What about the other points? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2235768 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202235768%23c5 _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
