Thanks, Arjan! Got you point: 1) it's not technically possible to separate the license between binary RPMs and source RPMs; 2) the license tag is not worked as the authoritative license declaration
In our TV vertical, there indeed exists some complex situation. If I understood you correctly, I will add the license tag for binary rpms and ignore the license declaration that we could get from source RPMS. BRs -Debing -----Original Message----- From: Arjan van de Ven [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 10:27 AM To: Zheng, Debing Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [meego-packaging] One question on license declaration in .spec file On 6/5/2011 6:22 PM, Zheng, Debing wrote: > > Does anyone have ideas on this: how to add specific license > declaration to source RPM in case source RPM has different license > from the binary RPM? > ehh how can that happen? (also the license tag is advisory..... not authoritative in any way. I would suggest adding a significant comment in the spec file clarifying the actual situation if it's something complex) > Thanks > > -Debing > > *From:*[email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Zheng, Debing > *Sent:* Friday, June 03, 2011 4:01 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* [meego-packaging] One question on license declaration in > .spec file > > Hi all, > > I have a question on license declaration in .spec file. > > I found that I could declare the license for binary rpm and devel rpm. > But I don't know how to declare source RPM package. > > Source RPM package uses the same one with binary RPM. > > If anyone could tell me how to declare license for source RPM? > > Is this necessary and technical possible? > > BRs > > -Debing > > > _______________________________________________ > MeeGo-packaging mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-packaging _______________________________________________ MeeGo-packaging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-packaging
