[Fedora-packaging] Re: Packaging of license file in case of extracted sources

[Mattias Ellert]

20 apr 2009 kl. 18.54 skrev Orcan Ogetbil:

> On 04/20/2009 06:28 AM, Mattias Ellert wrote:
>> The question at hand is not whether the tarball contains inlined or
>> detached licenses. The question is which tarball the guideline refers
>> to. If it is the large upstream installer it does include a detached
>> license file. If it is the extracted tarball it does not.
>
> I want to make clear that the disagreement does not depend on whether
> we extract source tarballs from a larger tree or not.
>
> Let me talk over a toy example to demonstrate the situation:
>
> Suppose I am packaging MyApp. MyApp source tree has this layout:
> src/A/
> src/B/
> I am making MyApp-A and MyApp-B subpackages. Now there is a COPYING
> file under src/A/
>
> Should I put that COPYING file into the %doc of the MyApp-B package,  
> if
>
> - B requires A?
> - B doesn't require A?
>
> Let's make this clear, so that we can apply the general consensus on
> the new packages.
>
> Orcan

I can add to this that when using the upstream install script (which  
is not used in the RPM packaging) the license file in src/A is not  
installed in a package specific directory like $prefix/share/doc/A,  
which is the case for all other documentation, but directly in  
$prefix, indicating that it is upstream's intention that this license  
file is intended to cover the code of the full installer, and not only  
the code in src/A.

	Mattias

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 1444 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/attachments/20090420/d43bf3e0/attachment.p7s>