I've seen a few packages which include things like a readme or license file in both the main package and one or more subpackages.
The review guidelines are explicit that packages must not contain duplicate files in the %files listing, and generally these will abort a build, but in the case of %doc files this doesn't seem to be the case.
I know spot has indicated in the past that there's no legal requirement to duplicate the license file between subpackages, even when they have names which don't relate them in any way to the main package. What I've never been sure of is whether it's something I need to block packages for. I guess if anyone is that concerned about saving space they can just do --nodocs installs.
- J<
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 12:07:48AM -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
I've seen a few packages which include things like a readme or license file in both the main package and one or more subpackages.
The review guidelines are explicit that packages must not contain duplicate files in the %files listing, and generally these will abort a build, but in the case of %doc files this doesn't seem to be the case.
That's because they are not installed at the smae location since the package name is used when constructing the doc directory.
I know spot has indicated in the past that there's no legal requirement to duplicate the license file between subpackages, even when they have names which don't relate them in any way to the main package. What I've never been sure of is whether it's something I need to block packages for. I guess if anyone is that concerned about saving space they can just do --nodocs installs.
I personnally think that it can be left to the packager, but it also seems to me that we should discourage it in packages that depend on other packages that have the same doc files.
But, in my opinion, in packages that don't depend on each other, duplicating at least the license makes sense (though should not be mandatory).
-- Pat
On Fri, 2008-02-15 at 10:18 +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
But, in my opinion, in packages that don't depend on each other, duplicating at least the license makes sense (though should not be mandatory).
I've got no problem with this approach, although, I don't necessarily want to encourage it, as it could get absurd in packages with a lot of subpackages.
~spot
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 06:28:46PM -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
On Fri, 2008-02-15 at 10:18 +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
But, in my opinion, in packages that don't depend on each other, duplicating at least the license makes sense (though should not be mandatory).
I've got no problem with this approach, although, I don't necessarily want to encourage it, as it could get absurd in packages with a lot of subpackages.
Indeed. I have no problem with it being discouraged, as long as it is not forbidden (by the guidelines).
-- Pat
In packages with queer licensing (eg., multiple licensing scenarios) I duplicate the license(s) if they are relevant to the sub-packages as well. eg., in glade3, glade3-libgladeui and glade3-libgladeui-devel. Is this alright?
Cheers, Debarshi
"DR" == Debarshi Ray debarshi.ray@gmail.com writes:
DR> In packages with queer licensing (eg., multiple licensing DR> scenarios) I duplicate the license(s) if they are relevant to the DR> sub-packages as well. eg., in glade3, glade3-libgladeui and DR> glade3-libgladeui-devel. Is this alright?
It's not necessary, but I don't see any problem with it. There was just some discussion about this on this list a couple of days ago.
- J<
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org