Dne 24. 12. 21 v 20:33 Richard Fontana napsal(a):
On Fri, Dec 24, 2021 at 12:31 PM Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: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/411I assume that the comments there about hardlinking are still accurate. A long time ago I suggested that Fedora consider adopting what I understand the Debian convention to be, which is to have a single copy of several widely used license files in a directory called /usr/share/common-licenses, referenced as needed from a per-package debian/copyright file. From a license compliance standpoint the Debian approach has some merit. Richard
Actually, why not start with such package today and have (over the time) all approved (or even unapproved) licenses there? Certainly, if question about some license pops up today, it could be added to such package right away and later some BRP script could deduplicate such license files (or fail the build if there is unapproved license identified). This could be done gradually, as time permits or as new/old licenses are reviewed.
Vít
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ 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
