-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 12/17/2015 08:21 AM, Itamar wrote:
On 12/17/2015 11:04 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On 12/17/2015 07:30 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:53:09AM +0000, Mat Booth wrote:
>>>> 1) add readme file only to %doc 2) add readme file only to
>>>> %license 3) add readme to both %doc and %license 4) cut
>>>> file in two parts
>>> Actually I don't mind options 1, 2 or 3 (all of these
>>> options fulfil the legal obligations of the license, right?)
>>> -- 4 seems like unnecessary effort for no real gain.
>
>> Don't forget the "nodocs" use case, which the separate license
>> tag helps cover. That means 2 or 3 is preferable to 1. My
>> suggestion would be to go with 3 and then to ask upstream to
>> separate it out. Ideally, if they're using a standard license,
>> we can in the future deduplicate identical license files, too,
>> but only if they're just the license alone in a file.
>
> Just to clarify, Option 1 would not in fact be legally acceptable
> in many cases (because installation with --nodocs could then
> result in an installation that did not meet license requirements
> of having the text present on the installed system).
>
this macro is documented under packaging for epel wiki
%{!?_licensedir:%global license %doc}
EPEL is a special case, it doesn't have the necessary distinguishing
features in RPM to do %license. So on those platforms (to make
maintenance of spec files easier) it's just an alias to %doc.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
iEYEARECAAYFAlZzCN4ACgkQeiVVYja6o6NxBACglHFLGx+zKrDeFcHpUifmmgRp
P7oAnRpEzfHYN4i3Wi9omweJPaWetu4U
=5jgP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----