On Fri, Dec 24, 2021 at 10:05:26AM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > > > %license LICENSE.txt > >might still be needed—under the theory that the license file is > >supposed to be installed in /usr/share/licenses. > This assumption is not true. I even recall asking somewhere wrt > Python's license file: [...] > >The Licensing Guidelines simply say that %license must be used, > >and don’t mention /usr/share/licenses[2]. Since the license tag is My Fault™, and it was a long time ago, some background just for the sake of keeping our collective memory refreshed, the main purpose of the %license tag as distinct from %doc is to make sure that when packages are installed without docs (possibly in containers or other minimal-footprint situations), the license is still included, as many of them require that. As a bonus, we could theoretically change the behavior to de-dupe, or even do complicated things like only install the license files which require it when nodoc is used. That's not generally been worth bothering, but I do notice that /usr/share/license takes up 44MB on my desktop system, so... there's room to shrink. (Using jdupes, I found this is 13.32MiB "exclusive" with btrfs.) For reference: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/411 -- Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Fedora Project Leader _______________________________________________ packaging mailing list -- packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to packaging-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
