On Thu, 2007-07-26 at 20:49 -0500, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > On Thu, 2007-07-26 at 20:50 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > > Tom spot Callaway (tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx) said: > > > > I think the tagging per file in comments is definitely overkill. > > > > > > Most packages won't need it, and for those that do, it will make the > > > task for whomever is auditing the package (re: me) much simpler. > > > > 73 packages that I have installed have some sort of multiple licensing. > > 73 out of how many? How many of those packages could be reworked to use > subpackages instead? In addition, keep in mind that truly "dual/triple" licensed packages don't need this, only the "Various licenses" or "Assorted licenses" would. Listing them all in the License field is only step 1. Step 2 is being able to determine what, in that package, actually has what license, and having the packager do this makes step 2 a lot simpler. Utopia: RPM could support License(STRING), then we could have multiple license tags for packages. But as said many times before, we work with what we have, and if better things come along in RPM, we move to them. ~spot -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
