license of the binary policy
by Jilayne Lovejoy
Hi Fedora legal and packaging,
I'm cross-posting this, as I think it's relevant to both groups.
The current policy for filling out the license field of the spec file
(as described at
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidel...
) states, "The License: field refers to the licenses of the contents of
the binary rpm. When in doubt, ask."
As we consider how to improve documentation related to Fedora licensing,
it would be helpful to hear people's thoughts on the following:
1) how do you (package maintainers) interpret this policy in practice?
2) what further information/documentation about this policy would be
helpful?
3) should this policy be different, and if so, how?
4) any other related thoughts or observations
Thanks!
Jilayne
3 weeks, 4 days
Bundling
by Benson Muite
Fedora-review tool indicates that bundled content should be exempted by
the packaging committee. Should reviewers or packagers seek exemptions
for every bundled package? Presently it seems exemption seeking is done
rarely. As such, should the bundling guidelines or Fedora-review be
updated accordingly?
9 months, 3 weeks
Packaging and installing complex projects
by Nicholas Frizzell
I'm working on packaging a large piece of software which doesn't lend itself naturally to the FHS layout for the installation stage (https://github.com/o3de/o3de), since there are a lot of assumptions baked in about relative paths which would be very difficult to manually patch and maintain. When packaging software like this, what are the best practices to consider? The best compromise I've found is to do something similar to what the Firefox and Libreoffice packages do, which is to install the root project contents into their own directory under /usr/lib/proj, is this something that would be acceptable by Fedora standards when submitting for review?
9 months, 3 weeks
triggerin and multiple versions
by Fabrice Creuzot
Hello
I currently pushing updates for my packages.
I have a problem for one of them.
With openSUSE the build crash because:
error: line 97: Trigger fired by the same package
is already defined in spec file: %triggerin -- pango < 1.44
With Fedora, rpmlint says:
E: specfile-error error: line 77: Trigger fired by the same package
is already defined in spec file: %triggerin -- pango < 1.44
The spec file is:
https://github.com/luigifab/human-theme/blob/master/fedora/human-theme-gt...
So, I didn't push anything.
The packaged theme must be updated depending of Pango version.
I'm not sure how to do that:
- for Pango >= 1.44 and < 1.50 some changes must be added
- for Pango < 1.44 or >= 1.50 changes must be removed
Currently with my the spec file, for me, I think it's good.
But rpmlint disagree.
If someone have ideas.
Thanks!
10 months, 2 weeks
