[Fedora-packaging] License landscape (and question of best pratice)

Tom 'spot' Callaway tcallawa at redhat.com
Tue Mar 7 15:40:50 UTC 2006


On Tue, 2006-03-07 at 15:26 +0000, Jose' Matos wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 March 2006 14:46, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
> > I'd say, include DESCRIPTION as %doc, and keep License: as simple as
> > possible.
> 
>   But then we are duplicating that file, since R BUILD command also installs 
> it.
> 
>   On the other hand that is a very _descriptive_ file. ;-)
> 
>   I noticed before that you do the same in your R packages. So we could adopt 
> this as the standard practice for R packages. Does this looks like a deal? ;)

Sounds like a good idea. :)

~spot
-- 
Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Senior Sales Engineer || GPG ID: 93054260
Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices)
Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org
Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my!




More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list