Mattias Ellert wrote: > mån 2009-04-20 klockan 14:57 -0700 skrev Toshio Kuratomi: >> Mattias Ellert wrote: >>> 20 apr 2009 kl. 14.58 skrev Toshio Kuratomi: >>>> 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. >>> >> Ugh, upstream does put you in a bit of a bind, don't they? :-( > > Thank you for pointing out the obvious. > >> I think that you're pretty clearly in violation of this guideline: >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#Referencing_Source > > I don't see the violation here. The page clearly states what you have to > do if upstream does not provide the source tarball for your package. The > recipe is to state the commands needed to reproduce the tarball from > what is provided by upstream, which is exactly what is done in this > case. Quoting the guideline verbatim: > > "There are several cases where upstream is not providing the source to > you in an upstream tarball. In these cases you must document how to > generate the tarball used in the rpm either through a spec file comment > or a script included as a separate SourceX." > The difference is that in this case, upstream is providing you with a tarball. [...] >> Have you asked upstream whether they'd consider releasing individual >> tarballs for all components? Since they release individual update >> tarballs, this might be an oversight rather than something that they >> don't want to do. This would be the ideal outcome for us. >> I love how everyone I talk to about guidelines violations ignores my upstream comment :-/ Upstream is the first thing to try in any situation. Has this been tried here? [...] >> 3) Ask the packaging Committee for an exception to the Source Rule so >> you can modify the source tarball as you're doing now. > > I fail to see where the exception is (see above). > Failing upstream cooperation, this seems like the best option. > > To summarize this thread, I conclude that the majority thinks that the > license file must be part of the package. I also conclude that rather > than being made a separate source file (which is how it was originally > implemented) the license file should be copied into and made part of the > extracted source tarball. > > Is this a correct assessment of the view of the members of this list? > Yes. -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
