Re: Packaging of license file in case of extracted sources

[Mattias Ellert <mattias.ellert@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

20 apr 2009 kl. 14.58 skrev Toshio Kuratomi:

> Mattias Ellert wrote:
>
> > 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).
>
> What's the bugzilla URL?  I think people have answered the licence
> question pretty well but I'm curious to see how the split up of the  
> 300+
> packages is being accomplished.  That seems like it would be a more
> contentious area.
>
> -Toshio


Here is the reviewer saying "Will not approve package unless license  
file is removed":
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467235

Here is the reviewer saying "Will not approve package unless license  
file is added":
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478917

The specfiles for the two packages are almost identical.

The split of the huge upstream installer was not an issue with either  
reviewer, except one of them requested it should be better documented  
- after implementing that he was happy.

	Mattias

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging