[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 mailing list