Hi! I have several very similar packages being reviewed and two different reviewers reviewing different packages have reach contradicting conclusions about how the packaging guidelines should be interpreted. Since it doesn't make sense that the same issue is resolved differently depending on who happens to be the reviewer, and the reviewers have failed to reach a common viewpoint I send this mail to this list in the hope that there will be a way to resolve the issue consistently for all packages. Here is a description of the problem at hand: When upstream distributes sources in a gigantic installer containing the sources for 300+ packages it doesn't make sense to include this full tarfile for each SRPM, since less than 1% of it is used to compile each package. Instead the relevant subdirectory is extracted from this beast (properly documented in the specfile in accordance to the packaging guidelines). Then the question is how should the following guideline be interpreted: "If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc." Does this text refer to the big gigantic installer or the extracted source tarfile in this case. One reviewer strongly argues the first point and will only approve packages where the license file is included, the other strongly argues the second point and will only approve packages where the license file is not included. Both quote the above rule as the foundation for there standpoint. Since it doesn't make sense to do things differently depending on who happens to be the reviewer, I would like to have an official view of the packaging experts on this issue. Mattias
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
