[Fedora-packaging] Re: New draft packaging guidelines for OCaml
panemade at gmail.com
Wed Mar 5 06:04:36 UTC 2008
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 1:40 AM, Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl> wrote:
> Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 11:57:40AM -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
> >> On Mon, 2008-03-03 at 16:53 +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >>> - Clarify where documentation should go. Currently my practice has
> >>> been to put just the license file (if any) in the main package's %doc,
> >>> and the license file plus all other documentation & examples in
> >>> the devel subpackage. This duplicates (only) the license file, but
> >>> that seems acceptable since we shouldn't distribute software without
> >>> its license.
> >> -devel packages should Require the main package, thus, there really
> >> isn't any need for the duplicate license copy.
> > But you could still just install the main package and not devel, and
> > then you are in the situation where Fedora has distributed a binary
> > and basically removed the licensing information. It doesn't feel like
> > the right thing to do to me (but IANAL).
> No Spot means it the other way around, keep the license in the main package and
> drop it from the -devel one as that requires the main package anyways.
I prefer to see this documented in guidelines instead to discuss
this on fedora-packaging or say on fedora-devel list. I assume same
will be applied for other %doc files AUTHORS ChangeLog README that is
not to include them if they are same files already included in main
More information about the Fedora-packaging