[Fedora-packaging] Re: New draft packaging guidelines for OCaml

Parag N(पराग़) panemade at gmail.com
Wed Mar 5 06:04:36 UTC 2008

Hi all,
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
package right?


More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list