Mattias Ellert wrote: > 20 apr 2009 kl. 18.54 skrev Orcan Ogetbil: > >> On 04/20/2009 06:28 AM, Mattias Ellert wrote: >>> The question at hand is not whether the tarball contains inlined or >>> detached licenses. The question is which tarball the guideline refers >>> to. If it is the large upstream installer it does include a detached >>> license file. If it is the extracted tarball it does not. >> >> I want to make clear that the disagreement does not depend on whether >> we extract source tarballs from a larger tree or not. >> >> Let me talk over a toy example to demonstrate the situation: >> >> Suppose I am packaging MyApp. MyApp source tree has this layout: >> src/A/ >> src/B/ >> I am making MyApp-A and MyApp-B subpackages. Now there is a COPYING >> file under src/A/ >> >> Should I put that COPYING file into the %doc of the MyApp-B package, if >> >> - B requires A? >> - B doesn't require A? >> >> Let's make this clear, so that we can apply the general consensus on >> the new packages. >> There's going to be differing thoughts on this depending on the circumstances. We need several specific examples to look at before we can come up with a general answer. > > I can add to this that when using the upstream install script (which is > not used in the RPM packaging) the license file in src/A is not > installed in a package specific directory like $prefix/share/doc/A, > which is the case for all other documentation, but directly in $prefix, > indicating that it is upstream's intention that this license file is > intended to cover the code of the full installer, and not only the code > in src/A. > Please send bugzilla ids. -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
