On 04/20/2009 06:28 AM, Mattias Ellert wrote:
The question at hand is not whether the tarball contains inlined or detached licenses. The question is which tarball the guideline refers to. If it is the large upstream installer it does include a detached license file. If it is the extracted tarball it does not.
I want to make clear that the disagreement does not depend on whether we extract source tarballs from a larger tree or not.
Let me talk over a toy example to demonstrate the situation:
Suppose I am packaging MyApp. MyApp source tree has this layout: src/A/ src/B/ I am making MyApp-A and MyApp-B subpackages. Now there is a COPYING file under src/A/
Should I put that COPYING file into the %doc of the MyApp-B package, if
- B requires A? - B doesn't require A?
Let's make this clear, so that we can apply the general consensus on the new packages.
Orcan
20 apr 2009 kl. 18.54 skrev Orcan Ogetbil:
On 04/20/2009 06:28 AM, Mattias Ellert wrote:
The question at hand is not whether the tarball contains inlined or detached licenses. The question is which tarball the guideline refers to. If it is the large upstream installer it does include a detached license file. If it is the extracted tarball it does not.
I want to make clear that the disagreement does not depend on whether we extract source tarballs from a larger tree or not.
Let me talk over a toy example to demonstrate the situation:
Suppose I am packaging MyApp. MyApp source tree has this layout: src/A/ src/B/ I am making MyApp-A and MyApp-B subpackages. Now there is a COPYING file under src/A/
Should I put that COPYING file into the %doc of the MyApp-B package, if
- B requires A?
- B doesn't require A?
Let's make this clear, so that we can apply the general consensus on the new packages.
Orcan
I can add to this that when using the upstream install script (which is not used in the RPM packaging) the license file in src/A is not installed in a package specific directory like $prefix/share/doc/A, which is the case for all other documentation, but directly in $prefix, indicating that it is upstream's intention that this license file is intended to cover the code of the full installer, and not only the code in src/A.
Mattias
Mattias Ellert wrote:
20 apr 2009 kl. 18.54 skrev Orcan Ogetbil:
On 04/20/2009 06:28 AM, Mattias Ellert wrote:
The question at hand is not whether the tarball contains inlined or detached licenses. The question is which tarball the guideline refers to. If it is the large upstream installer it does include a detached license file. If it is the extracted tarball it does not.
I want to make clear that the disagreement does not depend on whether we extract source tarballs from a larger tree or not.
Let me talk over a toy example to demonstrate the situation:
Suppose I am packaging MyApp. MyApp source tree has this layout: src/A/ src/B/ I am making MyApp-A and MyApp-B subpackages. Now there is a COPYING file under src/A/
Should I put that COPYING file into the %doc of the MyApp-B package, if
- B requires A?
- B doesn't require A?
Let's make this clear, so that we can apply the general consensus on the new packages.
There's going to be differing thoughts on this depending on the circumstances. We need several specific examples to look at before we can come up with a general answer.
I can add to this that when using the upstream install script (which is not used in the RPM packaging) the license file in src/A is not installed in a package specific directory like $prefix/share/doc/A, which is the case for all other documentation, but directly in $prefix, indicating that it is upstream's intention that this license file is intended to cover the code of the full installer, and not only the code in src/A.
Please send bugzilla ids.
-Toshio
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Mattias Ellert -
Orcan Ogetbil -
Toshio Kuratomi