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/LicensingGuidelin…
) 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
Merry Christmas everyone
I have an application that can either work with legacy iptables
(`iptables-legacy` and `ebtables-legacy`) or `nftables`. So I'm trying
to specify this as a dependency in a spec file. If a user has not
installed any of it (or `iptables-nft`) then `nftables` should be
preferred.
I thought this would be easy with a RPM boolean dependency [1]:
Requires: (ebtables-legacy if iptables-legacy else nftables)
When installing the RPM with this expression and no `iptables-legacy`
nor `nftables` already installed then `dnf` will want to install
`ebtables-legacy` and `iptables-legacy`.
Only when I include `nftables` in the `dnf install` command it will
ignore the legacy package dependencies.
Is there a way to express that I want `nftables` by default except a
user has already `iptables-legacy` installed?
Cheers,
Reto
[1]:
https://rpm-software-management.github.io/rpm/manual/boolean_dependencies.h…
