Marcus Rueckert wrote:
On 2007-07-31 13:35:59 +0200, Petr Cerny wrote:
Johannes Meixner wrote:
Hello,
The point in having /usr/share/doc/licenses is that this establishes one single location where all licenses used in a product are visible. Might this cause confusion for some users when they find out that
On Jul 30 17:26 Juergen Weigert wrote (shortened): they have many special licenses installed but not the software which belongs to those special licenses? I agree. Moreover I have to say, I'm confused: who should profit from the licenses.rpm packgage? If this is intended for users it's IMHO superfluous: to find what license has some package, users will either use 'rpm -qi' (or equivalent) or go to /usr/share/doc/packages/<pkg>. If this is because of us as distributors, I really don't see any significant advantages (if size question is insignificant).
In any case, licenses for not installed products are confusing and I regard the obligation to install such package a bloat.
it is less bloat than having the same file multiple times on the system. this package is not about "having all licenses" installed. it is about having a way to save space _and_ still have the license file available for symlinking.
Juergen Weigert wrote:
No. The point in having /usr/share/doc/licenses is that this establishes one single location where all licenses used in a product are visible. So the content of the licenses.rpm should not only be comprehensive, but also exact.
We can easily ignore any space saving effects.
Please consult previous posts: this "space saving" makes sense for small distribution (USB, PDA). Then however you would probably bzip2 each license file to really gain as much space as possible. On a fully-blown desktop distro the space saving would be visible, yet less needed. Moreover on a desktop with some 2000 packages you would save more space by uninstalling the packages you really don't need yet the got there because installer thought you might use them.
i dont see an issue of having a documentation packaging around that carries all used licenses. as a comparison: should an RFC package only install the files, which contain infos about my installed services?
i dont think so.
Wrong types in comparision. Installing rfc package is much more like installing *-devel or *-debuginfo packages than licenses.
I.e. what about "my installed licenses" versus "all licenses which are somewhere used by whatever software in the product"?
(Yes, I know, the obvious technical solution is to check to which installed license a symlink points ;-) Isn't it the same effort as scanning /usr/share/doc/packages for license files (rather than for symlinks pointing to /usr/share/doc/licenses)?
this is all about saving space. so a symlink will definitely help us.
I would say it differently: *If* this is all about saving space a symlink will *usually* help us. AFAIK on some (if not most) filesystems symlink takes one block (1KB at least) if the referenced filename takes more than 60B (e.g. strlen("/usr/share/doc/license/license-<md5sum>")=64 *in 1byte encoding*). MIT license is small (600B) so it occupies the same space as the symlink - one block. With GPL symlink helps. Best regards Petr --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org