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

Hans de Goede j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl
Mon Mar 3 20:10:07 UTC 2008

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.



More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list