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

[Toshio Kuratomi]

Mattias Ellert wrote:
> mån 2009-04-20 klockan 14:57 -0700 skrev Toshio Kuratomi:
>> Mattias Ellert wrote:
>>> 20 apr 2009 kl. 14.58 skrev Toshio Kuratomi:
>>>> What's the bugzilla URL?  I think people have answered the licence
>>>> question pretty well but I'm curious to see how the split up of the 300+
>>>> packages is being accomplished.  That seems like it would be a more
>>>> contentious area.
>>>>
>>>> -Toshio
>>>
>>> Here is the reviewer saying "Will not approve package unless license
>>> file is removed":
>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467235
>>>
>>> Here is the reviewer saying "Will not approve package unless license
>>> file is added":
>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478917
>>>
>>> The specfiles for the two packages are almost identical.
>>>
>>> The split of the huge upstream installer was not an issue with either
>>> reviewer, except one of them requested it should be better documented -
>>> after implementing that he was happy.
>>>
>> Ugh, upstream does put you in a bit of a bind, don't they? :-(
> 
> Thank you for pointing out the obvious.
> 
>> I think that you're pretty clearly in violation of this guideline:
>>   https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#Referencing_Source
> 
> I don't see the violation here. The page clearly states what you have to
> do if upstream does not provide the source tarball for your package. The
> recipe is to state the commands needed to reproduce the tarball from
> what is provided by upstream, which is exactly what is done in this
> case. Quoting the guideline verbatim:
> 
> "There are several cases where upstream is not providing the source to
> you in an upstream tarball. In these cases you must document how to
> generate the tarball used in the rpm either through a spec file comment
> or a script included as a separate SourceX."
> 
The difference is that in this case, upstream is providing you with a
tarball.

[...]
>> Have you asked upstream whether they'd consider releasing individual
>> tarballs for all components?  Since they release individual update
>> tarballs, this might be an oversight rather than something that they
>> don't want to do.  This would be the ideal outcome for us.
>>

I love how everyone I talk to about guidelines violations ignores my
upstream comment :-/  Upstream is the first thing to try in any
situation.  Has this been tried here?

[...]

>> 3) Ask the packaging Committee for an exception to the Source Rule so
>> you can modify the source tarball as you're doing now.
> 
> I fail to see where the exception is (see above).
> 
Failing upstream cooperation, this seems like the best option.

> 
> To summarize this thread, I conclude that the majority thinks that the
> license file must be part of the package. I also conclude that rather
> than being made a separate source file (which is how it was originally
> implemented) the license file should be copied into and made part of the
> extracted source tarball.
> 
> Is this a correct assessment of the view of the members of this list?
> 
Yes.

-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/20090420/5b4053d2/attachment.sig>