Hello, What would be really cool is if we could do it the same way like Gentoo. You simply have /usr/portage/licenses/ with all the licenses in the system and you package just say "I am BSD-3c" and same like all other pkgs with the same license point to that one file. Also funny thing is that some people actually verify the license of the package and if we would suddenly move it I suppose they would be quite suprised. Cheers Tom Dne Pá 5. února 2016 11:24:38, Jan Engelhardt napsal(a):

On Friday 2016-02-05 11:11, Dirk Müller wrote:

...

recently I've been made aware that other distributions are adopting %license convention for tagging package licenses.

Of course this only works for new versions of the rpmbuild program, so you will not be seeing an immediate bandwagon jump while people try to keep their specfiles workable with SLE11. And 12.

...

Technically this seems to be the same like %doc except that it copies to %_defaultlicensedir instead of %_defaultdocdir. with other words

%license FOO

will copy FOO file to /usr/share/licenses/%name/FOO

What are the opinions around that?

It is horrible. Now one extra directory is created for every package (and there is only one file on it on average), which is going to kill filesystem traversal performance for people who still use a rotating disk for /usr. (Not that it makes a difference if the license file is the only %doc file in the %files list.)

Would have probably been nicer to use /usr/share/licenses/%name as the filename (possibly suffixed with .FOO if multiple are needed).

...

An alternative would be to redefine %defaultlicensedir to %docdir, which would make install the file in the old location, and we could use %license and %doc interchangeably.

-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 11:40:24AM +0100, Ludwig Nussel wrote:

Tomáš Chvátal wrote:

...

What would be really cool is if we could do it the same way like Gentoo.

You simply have /usr/portage/licenses/ with all the licenses in the system and you package just say "I am BSD-3c" and same like all other pkgs with the same license point to that one file.

Also funny thing is that some people actually verify the license of the package and if we would suddenly move it I suppose they would be quite suprised.

There was an attempt to do something like that in openSUSE in the past already. I can't remember anymore why it failed though.

I think the legal team wanted the licenses more explicit and really in the package instead of symlinks into the shared licenses RPM. Ciao, Marcus -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

On Friday 2016-02-05 17:07, Johannes Meixner wrote:

Furthermore I wonder how to 100% ensure that a license file in such a shared licenses RPM will never ever change because otherwise licenses in software packages that only link to it could become wrong.

md5 checksums on the content. That's what we did. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

Hello, On Feb 8 10:38 Richard Biener wrote (excerpt):

On Fri, 5 Feb 2016, Jan Engelhardt wrote:

...

On Friday 2016-02-05 17:07, Johannes Meixner wrote:

...

Furthermore I wonder how to 100% ensure that a license file in such a shared licenses RPM will never ever change because otherwise licenses in software packages that only link to it could become wrong.

md5 checksums on the content. That's what we did.

Well, yes. With %license rpm itself could de-dup the files at install time.

And of course do not forget that afterwards the shared licenses RPM will never ever change (e.g. updated with changed licenses) because otherwise licenses in software packages that link to it could become wrong. Kind Regards Johannes Meixner -- SUSE LINUX GmbH - GF: Felix Imendoerffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton - HRB 21284 (AG Nuernberg) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

Jan Engelhardt wrote:

On Friday 2016-02-05 11:11, Dirk Müller wrote:

...

recently I've been made aware that other distributions are adopting %license convention for tagging package licenses.

Of course this only works for new versions of the rpmbuild program, so you will not be seeing an immediate bandwagon jump while people try to keep their specfiles workable with SLE11. And 12.

The feature was introduced in rpm 4.11.0 so it should be available in sle12. Just /usr/share/licenses is not packaged. For older distributions obs could probably be made to define %license to %doc or even mangle the spec file. +1 for using %license from my side.

...

Technically this seems to be the same like %doc except that it copies to %_defaultlicensedir instead of %_defaultdocdir. with other words

%license FOO

will copy FOO file to /usr/share/licenses/%name/FOO

What are the opinions around that?

It is horrible. Now one extra directory is created for every package (and there is only one file on it on average), which is going to kill filesystem traversal performance for people who still use a rotating disk for /usr. (Not that it makes a difference if the license file is the only %doc file in the %files list.)

If that was a problem wouldn't we have that today with /usr/share/doc/packages already? Even worse as that also contains tons of subdirs. cu Ludwig -- (o_ Ludwig Nussel //\ V_/_ http://www.suse.com/ SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

Richard Biener wrote:

[...] I suppose the purpose of %license is to annotate what is a license and what not and make rpm -i --excludedocs still install licenses? Or make a rpm --showlicense XX possible?

Exactly. The files are annotated in the file list -> rpm -qL $packages cu Ludwig -- (o_ Ludwig Nussel //\ V_/_ http://www.suse.com/ SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 11:24:38AM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:

On Friday 2016-02-05 11:11, Dirk Müller wrote:

...

recently I've been made aware that other distributions are adopting %license convention for tagging package licenses.

Of course this only works for new versions of the rpmbuild program, so you will not be seeing an immediate bandwagon jump while people try to keep their specfiles workable with SLE11. And 12.

...

Technically this seems to be the same like %doc except that it copies to %_defaultlicensedir instead of %_defaultdocdir. with other words

%license FOO

will copy FOO file to /usr/share/licenses/%name/FOO

What are the opinions around that?

It is horrible. Now one extra directory is created for every package (and there is only one file on it on average), which is going to kill filesystem traversal performance for people who still use a rotating disk for /usr. (Not that it makes a difference if the license file is the only %doc file in the %files list.)

What about something like /usr/share/licenses//%name That would create much less directories. I also like the idea of hard-link deduplication in %posttrans. Tomas

On Monday 2016-02-08 12:46, Andreas Schwab wrote:

Tomáš Čech writes:

...

What about something like

/usr/share/licenses//%name

You have to allow for more than one license per package.

Like said before, /%name.gpl3 /%name.wtfpl2 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org