[Fedora-packaging] Re: New draft packaging guidelines for OCaml
Richard W.M. Jones
rjones at redhat.com
Mon Mar 3 22:18:43 UTC 2008
On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 09:10:07PM +0100, Hans de Goede 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.
Right, got it now.
Richard Jones, Emerging Technologies, Red Hat http://et.redhat.com/~rjones
virt-p2v converts physical machines to virtual machines. Boot with a
live CD or over the network (PXE) and turn machines into Xen guests.
More information about the Fedora-packaging