There seems to be some confusion about including the license file in a
package. I have been told two more-or-less contradictory things in two
very similar packages. Unfortunately I can't find the wiki citation
about this right now, but...
php-pear-DB (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=176733):
"You do not have to bring in the license from an external source."
php-pear-PEAR-Command-Packaging
(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=185423):
"SHOULD FIX: Include actual license in %doc"
OK, so they're not actually contradictory. But we really ought to have
some consistency here. If the license file isn't distributed with the
package, we should have a clear policy: either we pull it in from an
external source (maybe if that's "reasonably" possible, i.e. it's
distributed on a public URL as a standalone file), or we don't.
Otherwise we just lengthen package reviews and cause the precious time
of packagers to be wasted with repeated pointless discussions and
re-spins of packages.
I really don't care what the policy is - I don't mind whether or not I
have to pull external license files into my packages, I just think there
should be an unambiguous policy so that I don't have to have this debate
every time I do a package. Plus we have at least some consistency for users.
Tim
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
