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}