Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=498218 --- Comment #11 from Edwin ten Brink <fed...@tenbrink-bekkers.nl> 2009-11-12 13:38:33 EDT --- (In reply to comment #9) > > (In reply to comment #6) > > > But this package does not even have a tarball. Is there any other > > > examples > > > of Fedora packages that just cut the license text from the soure file? If > > > not, I would say it is best to obey the guideline. > > > > ? I'm unaware of any such practices (or cases where it might be applicable > > for > > that matter). I preferred to have the README out of the script in a %doc > > file, > > and figured when I did so, I could just as well generate a COPYING. It seems > > that I either should do it this way, or drop all generated %doc files > > entirely. Which option do you recommend? > > > > I am really not sure about this. The guideline might be interpreted either > way. > Could you ask this in the fedora-packaging list? When writing my mail to fedora-packaging, I re-read the actual line several times. It seems I've over-interpreted it at the time of packaging: "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." The crux here is the *own file*. It does not include the text in it's own file COPYING. It is therefore incorrect to generate the file (because if the "If (and only if)"). Therefore, I'll strip out the generation of these files, as per your original suggestion. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
