[Fedora-packaging] Packaging of license file in case of extracted sources
mattias.ellert at fysast.uu.se
Mon Apr 20 08:01:14 UTC 2009
I have several very similar packages being reviewed and two different
reviewers reviewing different packages have reach contradicting
conclusions about how the packaging guidelines should be interpreted.
Since it doesn't make sense that the same issue is resolved differently
depending on who happens to be the reviewer, and the reviewers have
failed to reach a common viewpoint I send this mail to this list in the
hope that there will be a way to resolve the issue consistently for all
Here is a description of the problem at hand:
When upstream distributes sources in a gigantic installer containing the
sources for 300+ packages it doesn't make sense to include this full
tarfile for each SRPM, since less than 1% of it is used to compile each
package. Instead the relevant subdirectory is extracted from this beast
(properly documented in the specfile in accordance to the packaging
Then the question is how should the following guideline be interpreted:
"If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package must be included in %doc."
Does this text refer to the big gigantic installer or the extracted
source tarfile in this case.
One reviewer strongly argues the first point and will only approve
packages where the license file is included, the other strongly argues
the second point and will only approve packages where the license file
is not included.
Both quote the above rule as the foundation for there standpoint. Since
it doesn't make sense to do things differently depending on who happens
to be the reviewer, I would like to have an official view of the
packaging experts on this issue.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 2272 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Fedora-packaging