20 apr 2009 kl. 18.54 skrev Orcan Ogetbil:
On 04/20/2009 06:28 AM, Mattias Ellert wrote:
> The question at hand is not whether the tarball contains inlined or
> detached licenses. The question is which tarball the guideline refers
> to. If it is the large upstream installer it does include a detached
> license file. If it is the extracted tarball it does not.
I want to make clear that the disagreement does not depend on whether
we extract source tarballs from a larger tree or not.
Let me talk over a toy example to demonstrate the situation:
Suppose I am packaging MyApp. MyApp source tree has this layout:
src/A/
src/B/
I am making MyApp-A and MyApp-B subpackages. Now there is a COPYING
file under src/A/
Should I put that COPYING file into the %doc of the MyApp-B package,
if
- B requires A?
- B doesn't require A?
Let's make this clear, so that we can apply the general consensus on
the new packages.
Orcan
I can add to this that when using the upstream install script (which
is not used in the RPM packaging) the license file in src/A is not
installed in a package specific directory like $prefix/share/doc/A,
which is the case for all other documentation, but directly in
$prefix, indicating that it is upstream's intention that this license
file is intended to cover the code of the full installer, and not only
the code in src/A.
Mattias