I agreed with you. I just worried the heavy task to update all spec files with an additional script instead of modifying intltoolize... OK, I'll send the next patch without changing intltool. Probably I'll suggest l10n-configure.sh, which is the internal script, in %build.
Thanks, fujiwara Alan Coopersmith wrote: > Will this affect the intltoolize installed on the system? If so, that > doesn't seem like a good plan, if every user gets this inserted into the > notice in packages they're building themselves, and it's not just applied > to packages being built by Sun. We can't force a license choice onto > third parties for software we aren't providing them. > > Takao Fujiwara - Tokyo S/W Center wrote: > >>Thinking about l10n copyright, an idea is to modify po/Makefile.in.in and >>gnome-doc-utils.make so that the header of .po files are installed. >>l10n copyright is described in the head of each .po files. >> >>Since most of .spec files call intltoolize but not gnome-doc-prepare, it's >>easy for me to modify intltoolize. It means SUNWzzgnome-l10n.copyright has >>the following contents: >> >>The copyright is described in each .po files and please refer >>/usr/share/locale/$LOCALE/LC_MESSAGES/copyright.gz or >>/usr/share/gnome/help/$MODULE/$LOCALE/copyright.gz >> >>The license is described in each base package. >> >>For the avoidance of doubt, except that if any license choice other >>than GPL or LGPL is available it will apply instead, Sun elects to >>use only the General Public License version 2 (GPLv2) at this time >>for any software where a choice of GPL license versions is made >>available with the language indicating that GPLv2 or any later >>version may be used, or where a choice of which version of the GPL >>is applied is otherwise unspecified. >> >>-------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>What do you think? >>If I need to modify each .spec to add the internal script instead of >>intltoolize, it will need time. >> >>Thanks, >>fujiwara >> > >
