Mattias Ellert wrote:
mån 2009-04-20 klockan 14:57 -0700 skrev Toshio Kuratomi:
> Mattias Ellert wrote:
>> 20 apr 2009 kl. 14.58 skrev Toshio Kuratomi:
>>> What's the bugzilla URL? I think people have answered the licence
>>> question pretty well but I'm curious to see how the split up of the 300+
>>> packages is being accomplished. That seems like it would be a more
>>> contentious area.
>>>
>>> -Toshio
>>
>> Here is the reviewer saying "Will not approve package unless license
>> file is removed":
>>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467235
>>
>> Here is the reviewer saying "Will not approve package unless license
>> file is added":
>>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478917
>>
>> The specfiles for the two packages are almost identical.
>>
>> The split of the huge upstream installer was not an issue with either
>> reviewer, except one of them requested it should be better documented -
>> after implementing that he was happy.
>>
> Ugh, upstream does put you in a bit of a bind, don't they? :-(
Thank you for pointing out the obvious.
> I think that you're pretty clearly in violation of this guideline:
>
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#Referencing_Source
I don't see the violation here. The page clearly states what you have to
do if upstream does not provide the source tarball for your package. The
recipe is to state the commands needed to reproduce the tarball from
what is provided by upstream, which is exactly what is done in this
case. Quoting the guideline verbatim:
"There are several cases where upstream is not providing the source to
you in an upstream tarball. In these cases you must document how to
generate the tarball used in the rpm either through a spec file comment
or a script included as a separate SourceX."
The difference is that in this case, upstream is providing you with a
tarball.
[...]
> Have you asked upstream whether they'd consider releasing
individual
> tarballs for all components? Since they release individual update
> tarballs, this might be an oversight rather than something that they
> don't want to do. This would be the ideal outcome for us.
>
I love how everyone I talk to about guidelines violations ignores my
upstream comment :-/ Upstream is the first thing to try in any
situation. Has this been tried here?
[...]
> 3) Ask the packaging Committee for an exception to the Source
Rule so
> you can modify the source tarball as you're doing now.
I fail to see where the exception is (see above).
Failing upstream cooperation, this seems like the best option.
To summarize this thread, I conclude that the majority thinks that the
license file must be part of the package. I also conclude that rather
than being made a separate source file (which is how it was originally
implemented) the license file should be copied into and made part of the
extracted source tarball.
Is this a correct assessment of the view of the members of this list?
Yes.
-Toshio