Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-packaging (205 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse-packaging] Re: in a lib package, where does the copyright info go?
On Tuesday, September 06, 2011 07:32:35 AM Yamaban wrote:
On Tue, 6 Sep 2011 13:55, Paul Elliott <pelliott@...> wrote:
On Tuesday, September 06, 2011 02:37:36 AM you wrote:
On Tue, 6 Sep 2011, Marcus Meissner wrote:
On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 08:55:57AM +0200, Petr Gajdos wrote:
1) libFOO
2) libFOOX where X comes from the SONAME and contains the
.so.x.x.x 3) libFOO-devel

I am not a lawyer, so only common sense tels me that if any piece of
libFOO (libFOO, libFOOX, libFOO-devel or other) is installed, then
appropriate license must be present (by this subpackage or its
requirement). This is in contradiction with our Shared library
packaging policy though.

/usr/share/doc/packages/<pkgname>/ seems like a fine place for it
and would not collide.

Yes, /usr/share/doc/packages/<sub-pkgname>/ would be ok even for libFOOX
(but not /usr/share/doc/packages/libFOO/ for libFOOX for example).

If I put on an IANAL hat then every subpackage has to contain the
license information. But _at least_ it should be present if any
of the packages are installed. Thus, as usually libFOO-devel requires
libFOOX the license should be present in libFOOX. It should always
be present in libFOOX as that can be installed separately without
any other subpackages.

Thus, the shared library policy should be amended that it's ok
to put _license_ information (but not readme, news, etc.) for
the shared-library package libFOOX into
/usr/share/doc/packages/libFOOX/.

I'm going to amend it this way.

Richard.

This would appear to conflict with debian practice, see Debian Policy
Manual section 8.2
http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-sharedlibs.html

Since the upstream source for a large number of projects was originally
written for debian, and then tweeked by a .spec file author to also work
for suse and the other rpm based distros, this will result in spec file
tweeking, with associated labor and maintainence costs.

One can control the PACKAGE a file is in simply by moving a line from one
package to the other.

But if the name or directory a file is in changes from debian to rpm that
invokes hand tweeking, (In the absence of changes by the upstream
author).

Just a moment, people, please.
Aren't the sub-packages under exactly the same license as the
master-package? Isn't it so that without the master package the
sub-packages can't be installed regulary? (without --nodeps etc)

The Problem is the package that must be installed (i.e. master package)
the libFOOX package, is also the package that varies most rapidly.
The libFOOX package changes with every new SONAME. The
libFOO-devel package depends on _A_ libFOOX package, but it can outlive
any one of them.

You might want to have a pointer in libFOO-devel to the copyright file
but you can't because libFOOX might be newer and have a different X
hence different directory names.

That is, if the copyright file is
/usr/share/packages/libFOOX/copyright in the package libFOOX, then how can the
package libFOO-devel have a pointer to this file, when the -devel package does
not know what X is?

If on the otherhand, the copyright file is
/usr/share/packages/libFOO-devel/copyright but the copyright file is owned by
the libFOOX package, which package will be the owner of the directory
/usr/share/packages/libFOO-devel? Remember the libFOOX package can be
installed when the libFOO-devel is not.

If you force libFOO-devel to be replaced everytime a libFOOX chages,
that is everytime a SONAME changes, you undermine the value of the libtool
versioning system and force a lot of user programs, (which are not necessarily
packaged), to be recompiled. You also force a lot of new versions of packaged
programs.

Also, at least under debian there can be more than one libFOOX package
installed!

This allows program compiled with different versions of libFOO-devel to be
installed at the same time. The libtool versioning system is setup to allow
for this.

Is this not the case with opensuse as well?

In this case, a copyright file owned by libFOOX can not be installed in a
common place like /usr/share/packages/libFOO because you would get 2 packages
owning the same file.

But if the copyright file is in /usr/share/packages/libFOOX/copyright then you
could have 2 copies of the copyright file. (For 2 different Xs i.e. libFOO5 and
libFOO6 could be installed at same time so:
/usr/share/packages/libFOO5/copyright
/usr/share/packages/libFOO6/copyright

The libFOOX package is used to run programs under the gpl and most OS/FS
licenses, programs can be run without a license.

To distribute a program you must develop it first. But to develop it you will
need the -devel package. It that package contains the license you will have
your opertunity to read the license. Distributing is the activity that usually
triggers the need for a license. Thus it is OK for the license info to be in
the -devel package.


The above is an example of the truism that there is generally method in the
debian madness. If you try to vary from the debian way without carefull
thought you generally run into problems.


Even opensuse has tumbleweed now.


Then only /usr/share/doc/packages/<master-package>/ should exist.
No sense in cluttering a system with useless, senseless sh*t.
any documentation of a package, includnig it's dependend sub-packages
shloud be there, and not in any additional dir under
/usr/share/doc/packages/ .
It's waste of space enough as it is, no sense to add to that.

What about /usr/share/doc/licences/<licence-name> and just a file
named LICENSE_IS_<licence-name> with a content of a line
"see /usr/share/doc/licences/<licence-name>" to end that waste of space
on the same file over and over. At least for the most used licenses
(GPL, BSD, Mozilla, Apache) and their acknowlged derivates this would
be sufficent to the license and the law.

Just let a file-deduplation run on the /usr/share/doc/packages/
directory of a normally installed system and look at the output.

For a SSD installation this is not acceptable, even less for more
space restriced systems.

Why not just include a license in everything, even the compiled code
to be more absurd. ATM we are getting there.

Stop it. Now.
Take a step back, regain sanity, wisdom, and forward thinking.
Find a workable, qualified, space conserving solution.

Examining the details is the key to this.


Yamaban.

PS: Sorry for the rant, but themata "Licence included in everthing"
becomes absurd.



--
Paul Elliott 1(512)837-1096
pelliott@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx PMB 181, 11900 Metric Blvd Suite J
http://www.free.blackpatchpanel.com/pme/ Austin TX 78758-3117
< Previous Next >
Follow Ups