2010/7/8 Tom "spot" Callaway <tcall...@redhat.com>:
> On 07/08/2010 04:12 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 16:29:01 -0400, Tom wrote:
>>
>>> However, if a subpackage is independent of any base package (it does
>>> not require it, either implicitly or explicitly), it must include
>>> copies of any license texts (as present in the source) which are
>>> applicable to the files contained within the subpackage.
>>
>> With this we've reached the point once more where the default %doc dir is
>> a poor choice, because it is based on the subpackage's %{name} instead of
>> the src.rpm's or base package's %{name}.
>>
>> For the common tools'n'library split of a package, the changed guidelines
>> duplicate the license files by storing them in two different directories
>> when using %doc:
>>
>> /usr/share/doc/name-1.0/COPYING
>> /usr/share/doc/name-libs-1.0/COPYING
>
> Yes, I absolutely understand that. The intent is to minimize this by
> leveraging dependencies (tools depends on libs). A common, system-wide
> directory for license files to be dropped into is a recipe for disaster
> (COPYING conflicts with COPYING).
>
Dose this mean we only need to add license text to -libs subpackage
instead of base package if we assume the base package depends on -libs
subpackage?
Chen Lei
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
