On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 10:01 +0200, Mattias Ellert wrote: > 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. My 0.02€: If everything in the gigantic tarball is under the same license, then it should be included. If the subpackages are from different upstreams and they are not under the same license, then if no license file is distributed with the subpackage it is not put into %doc. Of course, the situation is trickier if the upstream tarball contains many license files, e.g. COPYING.BSD, COPYING.MIT and COPYING.GPLv2; in that case the license file should be included in the (sub)package rpm even though the license file does not exist in the subpackage directory of the upstream tarball. -- Jussi Lehtola Fedora Project Contributor jussilehtola@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
