On 2007-07-25 12:00:44 +0200, Ludwig Nussel wrote:
> Reinhard Max wrote:
> > BTW, how does the license package approach fit with licenses that
> > require that the license text be included in any binary distribution?
> > As packages can be downloaded and installed without also downloading
> > the licenses package, people could view this as a license violation.
>
> You wouldn't be able to install the package without breaking dependencies.
> That's annoying at least. I don't remember anymore what kind of space saving
> the target of those shared licenses was. If it's about saving space in the
> installed system what about replacing actual files with hardlinks in %post?
> RPM
> doesn't seem to care about hardlink counts in %verify. At install time a
> recommended dependency on the license package would be sufficient then.
as the licenses package will be in the default package set of the distro
it wouldnt be a problem that you cant install other packages without it.
and replacing something in %post would be ugly and slow down the
installation process.
darix
--
openSUSE - SUSE Linux is my linux
openSUSE is good for you
www.opensuse.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
