On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 2:36 AM, François Cami <fc...@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 11:19 PM, Justin Forbes <jfor...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 2:19 PM, stan <stanl-fedorau...@vfemail.net> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 10:55:39 -0500
>>> Bruno Wolff III <br...@wolff.to> wrote:
>>>> I had filed a bug (1564745) for this a day earlier.
>>> Sorry about that.  I did a search, and when the top result was the
>>> issue, I didn't look further.
>>>> One option would be to change the name to match the kernel version.
>>>> Another option would be put it in kernel instead of kernel-core.
>>>> Another option would be to have a versioned name in kernel-core and
>>>> a symlink to it with the normal name in kernel.
>>> I vote for one.  There's a file for each installed kernel, and upon
>>> kernel removal, it just disappears without any checks to see if there
>>> are other kernels needing the file.
>> I would be happy to hear more feedback on this from people. I am
>> trying to decide on the best course to take (this file changes rarely
>> and last changed in 2005). I plan to put something in place by rc1
>> next Monday.
> I'd lean towards having COPYING in the kernel subpackage and
> installing it in a versioned directory - trading a very small amount
> of disk space for upgrade safety and simplicity.

I think the idea of naming the file COPYING-$kver might be better than
putting it in the versioned kernel directory. Simply because users
know that '/usr/share/licenses/<pkg>' contains licensing information.
kernel mailing list -- kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Reply via email to