Mattias Ellert wrote:
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.
>
There's going to be differing thoughts on this depending on the
circumstances.
We need several specific examples to look at before we can come up with
a general answer.
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.
Please send bugzilla ids.
-Toshio