On 12/17/2015 11:04 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On 12/17/2015 07:30 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:53:09AM +0000, Mat Booth wrote:
> >>> 1) add readme file only to %doc 2) add readme file only to
> >>> %license 3) add readme to both %doc and %license 4) cut file in
> >>> two parts
> >> Actually I don't mind options 1, 2 or 3 (all of these options
> >> fulfil the legal obligations of the license, right?) -- 4 seems
> >> like unnecessary effort for no real gain.
>
> > Don't forget the "nodocs" use case, which the separate license tag
> > helps cover. That means 2 or 3 is preferable to 1. My suggestion
> > would be to go with 3 and then to ask upstream to separate it out.
> > Ideally, if they're using a standard license, we can in the future
> > deduplicate identical license files, too, but only if they're just
> > the license alone in a file.
>
> Just to clarify, Option 1 would not in fact be legally acceptable in
> many cases (because installation with --nodocs could then result in an
> installation that did not meet license requirements of having the text
> present on the installed system).
>
this macro is documented under packaging for epel wiki
%{!?_licensedir:%global license %doc}
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
