On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 10:30 +0200, Mattias Ellert wrote: > mån 2009-04-20 klockan 11:15 +0300 skrev Jussi Lehtola: > > On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 10:01 +0200, Mattias Ellert wrote: > The upstream tarball contains one license file that applies to all code > developed by upstream. The upstream tarball also contain copies of the > source tree for some of its dependencies (openssl, libtool, > libxml2, ...) which also have separate license files. The presence of > these additional license files was given as an additional argument not > to include the license in the packages by the reviewer exercising this > position. These additional licences are rather irrelevant since those > parts of the upstream tarball will never be packaged for Fedora, since > the Fedora packages for these dependences are used. In that case I think the situation is clear: the license file must be present in %doc, since the subpackage rpms are all created from the same tarball. If everything is built in one big specfile, the license goes in the %doc of every subpackage that can be installed separately. (E.g. devel doesn't need to have the license, if devel requires the main package which already contains the license.) What do the others think? -- Jussi Lehtola Fedora Project Contributor jussilehtola@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
