10:44 a.m.
What's the correct way to write a spec file that obeys the %license*
stipulation but also works for epel6?
Some time ago I was told to follow
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/411 and write
%{!?_licensedir:%global license %%doc}
and that now also appears in
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging?rd=Packaging:EPEL#The_.25li...
I now realize it's not working in any non-el5/6 mock root I've tried,
because the macro isn't defined (according to "rpmbuild --showrc"), only
_defaultlicensedir is.
Is the instruction simply wrong, or am I missing something?
_
* I keep writing "licence", which is the noun in English English.
10:47 a.m.
On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Dave Love <d.love(a)liverpool.ac.uk> wrote:
What's the correct way to write a spec file that obeys the
%license*
stipulation but also works for epel6?
Some time ago I was told to follow
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/411 and write
%{!?_licensedir:%global license %%doc}
and that now also appears in
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging?rd=Packaging:EPEL#The_.25li...
Yeah, I ran into the same problem, turns out you don't need the double % in
front of doc, then it works as expected.
Thanks,
Richard
1:22 p.m.
Richard Shaw <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com> writes:
On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Dave Love
<d.love(a)liverpool.ac.uk> wrote:
> What's the correct way to write a spec file that obeys the %license*
> stipulation but also works for epel6?
>
> Some time ago I was told to follow
> https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/411 and write
>
> %{!?_licensedir:%global license %%doc}
>
> and that now also appears in
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging?rd=Packaging:EPEL#The_.25li...
Yeah, I ran into the same problem, turns out you don't need the double % in
front of doc, then it works as expected.
Sorry, I don't understand. What do I need to get _licensedir defined
appropriately so that the conditional makes sense (per the chopped part
of my message)?
1:41 p.m.
On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Dave Love <d.love(a)liverpool.ac.uk> wrote:
Sorry, I don't understand. What do I need to get _licensedir defined
appropriately so that the conditional makes sense (per the chopped part
of my message)?
%{!?_licensedir:%global license %doc}
%license COPYING
The redirect to doc works with %doc not %%doc.
Thanks,
Richard
8:06 p.m.
On Ter, 2015-12-01 at 16:44 +0000, Dave Love wrote:
What's the correct way to write a spec file that obeys the
%license*
stipulation but also works for epel6?
Some time ago I was told to follow
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/411 and write
%{!?_licensedir:%global license %%doc}
and that now also appears in
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging?rd=Packaging:EPEL#The_.
25license_tag
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging#The_.25license_tag
have the correct form :
%{!?_licensedir:%global license %doc}
I now realize it's not working in any non-el5/6 mock root
I've tried,
because the macro isn't defined (according to "rpmbuild --showrc"),
only
_defaultlicensedir is.
Is the instruction simply wrong, or am I missing something?
_
* I keep writing "licence", which is the noun in English English.
--
devel mailing list
devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.
org
--
Sérgio M. B.
10:45 a.m.
Sérgio Basto <sergio(a)serjux.com> writes:
On Ter, 2015-12-01 at 16:44 +0000, Dave Love wrote:
> What's the correct way to write a spec file that obeys the %license*
> stipulation but also works for epel6?
>
> Some time ago I was told to follow
> https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/411 and write
>
> %{!?_licensedir:%global license %%doc}
>
> and that now also appears in
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging?rd=Packaging:EPEL#The_.
> 25license_tag
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging#The_.25license_tag
have the correct form :
%{!?_licensedir:%global license %doc}
Well, it doesn't seem to make any difference.
I'm now baffled. I had the %%doc version above in a spec file, and
fedora-review complained about doc v. license. I checked with rpmbuild,
as below, found that _licensedir wasn't defined, only
_defaultlicensedir; so I changed to using that and the review complaint
went away.
However, a test with a trivial spec file shows that licensedir actually
is defined. Where does it come from, and why isn't it shown by
--showrc? Now I can't reproduce the issue with what I was packaging,
consistent with the test. Also I checked the dssp packages I did
recently using the %%doc form, and they show the right difference
between el5/6 and the rest.
> I now realize it's not working in any non-el5/6 mock root
I've tried,
> because the macro isn't defined (according to "rpmbuild --showrc"),
> only
> _defaultlicensedir is.
>
> Is the instruction simply wrong, or am I missing something?
Apologies for the noise, but...
-- Confused of Liverpool
3093
days inactive
3094
days old
5 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Dave Love -
Richard Shaw -
Sérgio Basto