[Fedora-packaging] Including License doc in packages
lists at timj.co.uk
Wed Jun 28 22:13:45 UTC 2006
There seems to be some confusion about including the license file in a
package. I have been told two more-or-less contradictory things in two
very similar packages. Unfortunately I can't find the wiki citation
about this right now, but...
"You do not have to bring in the license from an external source."
"SHOULD FIX: Include actual license in %doc"
OK, so they're not actually contradictory. But we really ought to have
some consistency here. If the license file isn't distributed with the
package, we should have a clear policy: either we pull it in from an
external source (maybe if that's "reasonably" possible, i.e. it's
distributed on a public URL as a standalone file), or we don't.
Otherwise we just lengthen package reviews and cause the precious time
of packagers to be wasted with repeated pointless discussions and
re-spins of packages.
I really don't care what the policy is - I don't mind whether or not I
have to pull external license files into my packages, I just think there
should be an unambiguous policy so that I don't have to have this debate
every time I do a package. Plus we have at least some consistency for users.
More information about the Fedora-packaging