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

[Toshio Kuratomi]

Mattias Ellert wrote:
> 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.
>>
There's going to be differing thoughts on this depending on the
circumstances.
We need several specific examples to look at before we can come up with
a general answer.

> 
> 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.
> 
Please send bugzilla ids.

-Toshio

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/attachments/20090420/95369e30/attachment.sig>