[Bug 1082318] New: Packages must not mark license files as %doc
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318 Bug ID: 1082318 Summary: Packages must not mark license files as %doc Classification: openSUSE Product: openSUSE Tumbleweed Version: Current Hardware: All OS: Other Status: NEW Severity: Normal Priority: P5 - None Component: Other Assignee: bnc-team-screening@forge.provo.novell.com Reporter: fvogt@suse.com QA Contact: qa-bugs@suse.de Found By: --- Blocker: --- Certain licenses require that license files must be shipped together with the binaries in all cases. By using the %doc marker, this is no longer guaranteed (e.g. by enabling excludedocs). Thus it is important that for such cases, %license is used instead of %doc. The effect is that the file is always installed, stored in a different directory (/usr/share/licenses/<pkg>/) and can be queried using rpm (e.g. "rpm -qL kernel-firmware"). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c1
--- Comment #1 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c4
--- Comment #4 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c6
--- Comment #6 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c8
--- Comment #8 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c9
--- Comment #9 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c11
--- Comment #11 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c15
--- Comment #15 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c18
--- Comment #18 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c20
--- Comment #20 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c22
--- Comment #22 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c23
--- Comment #23 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c24
--- Comment #24 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c27
--- Comment #27 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c29
--- Comment #29 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c33
--- Comment #33 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c36
--- Comment #36 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c37
--- Comment #37 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c39
--- Comment #39 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c41
--- Comment #41 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c42
--- Comment #42 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c43
--- Comment #43 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c45
--- Comment #45 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c49
--- Comment #49 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c53
--- Comment #53 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c54
--- Comment #54 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c55
--- Comment #55 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c56
--- Comment #56 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c61
--- Comment #61 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c63
--- Comment #63 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c65
--- Comment #65 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c66
--- Comment #66 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c67
--- Comment #67 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c68
--- Comment #68 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Guilherme Moro
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Fabian Vogt
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Rick Salevsky
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Fabian Vogt
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Frederic Crozat
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Fabian Vogt
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Frederic Crozat
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Frederic Crozat
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c85
--- Comment #85 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c86
--- Comment #86 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c87
--- Comment #87 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c89
--- Comment #89 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c91
--- Comment #91 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c94
--- Comment #94 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c98
--- Comment #98 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c100
--- Comment #100 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c102
--- Comment #102 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c104
--- Comment #104 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c105
--- Comment #105 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c106
--- Comment #106 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Benjamin Brunner
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c108
--- Comment #108 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c115
--- Comment #115 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c116
--- Comment #116 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c117
--- Comment #117 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c118
--- Comment #118 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c121
--- Comment #121 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c124
--- Comment #124 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c125
--- Comment #125 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c126
--- Comment #126 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c130
--- Comment #130 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c131
--- Comment #131 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c132
--- Comment #132 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c133
--- Comment #133 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c134
--- Comment #134 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c135
--- Comment #135 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c136
--- Comment #136 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c137
--- Comment #137 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c138
--- Comment #138 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c139
--- Comment #139 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c142
--- Comment #142 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c143
--- Comment #143 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c144
--- Comment #144 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c145
--- Comment #145 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c146
--- Comment #146 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c147
--- Comment #147 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c148
--- Comment #148 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c149
--- Comment #149 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c151
--- Comment #151 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c154
--- Comment #154 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c156
--- Comment #156 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c157
--- Comment #157 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Jiachen Zhang
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c158
--- Comment #158 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c161
--- Comment #161 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c162
--- Comment #162 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c164
Hannes Reinecke
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c168
--- Comment #168 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c175
--- Comment #175 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c176
--- Comment #176 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c177
--- Comment #177 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c179
--- Comment #179 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c180
--- Comment #180 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c181
--- Comment #181 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c182
--- Comment #182 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c186
--- Comment #186 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c188
--- Comment #188 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c189
--- Comment #189 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c192
--- Comment #192 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c193
--- Comment #193 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c194
--- Comment #194 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c196
Kristoffer Gronlund
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c197
--- Comment #197 from Fabian Vogt
Is it too late to object to this change, which is completely misguided?
Instead of breaking every single package by changing the meaning of "excludedocs" to mean "let me strip these files from the package", how about adding support for tagging files in an rpm as strippable or optional, so that not only documentation can be dropped when space is at a premium, but any other files that may not be essential for the functionality?
That's what optional subpackages are for though.
That way, every single package would still be OK even without any markup, and packages can be updated to mark files as optional over time. Instead, this %license macro now means that all packages that have used %doc to tag the LICENSE file somehow violate the GPL.
That excludedocs means that files tagged as %doc are not installed is absolutely set in stone and will not change. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c198
--- Comment #198 from Kristoffer Gronlund
(In reply to Kristoffer Gronlund from comment #196)
Is it too late to object to this change, which is completely misguided?
Instead of breaking every single package by changing the meaning of "excludedocs" to mean "let me strip these files from the package", how about adding support for tagging files in an rpm as strippable or optional, so that not only documentation can be dropped when space is at a premium, but any other files that may not be essential for the functionality?
That's what optional subpackages are for though.
That way, every single package would still be OK even without any markup, and packages can be updated to mark files as optional over time. Instead, this %license macro now means that all packages that have used %doc to tag the LICENSE file somehow violate the GPL.
That excludedocs means that files tagged as %doc are not installed is absolutely set in stone and will not change.
I have no problem whatsoever with excludedocs meaning that files tagged as %doc are not installed. I have a problem with excludedocs being used in a way that breaks the existing intention and usage of the %doc tag in spec files. Whoever thought that using excludedocs to strip packages for inclusion in containers was a good idea was evidently wrong about that, as it required the introduction of the %license tag, so that there are now two useless tags: Not only can %doc no longer be used to simply mark up documentation files as intended because it's being subverted to mean something it did not do before, but the only reason %license exists is as a hack to work around the previously mentioned hack. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c199
--- Comment #199 from Fabian Vogt
(In reply to Fabian Vogt from comment #197)
(In reply to Kristoffer Gronlund from comment #196)
Is it too late to object to this change, which is completely misguided?
Instead of breaking every single package by changing the meaning of "excludedocs" to mean "let me strip these files from the package", how about adding support for tagging files in an rpm as strippable or optional, so that not only documentation can be dropped when space is at a premium, but any other files that may not be essential for the functionality?
That's what optional subpackages are for though.
That way, every single package would still be OK even without any markup, and packages can be updated to mark files as optional over time. Instead, this %license macro now means that all packages that have used %doc to tag the LICENSE file somehow violate the GPL.
That excludedocs means that files tagged as %doc are not installed is absolutely set in stone and will not change.
I have no problem whatsoever with excludedocs meaning that files tagged as %doc are not installed.
I have a problem with excludedocs being used in a way that breaks the existing intention and usage of the %doc tag in spec files.
That's not the case. Marking license files as %doc is what broke intention here.
Whoever thought that using excludedocs to strip packages for inclusion in containers was a good idea was evidently wrong about that, as it required the introduction of the %license tag, so that there are now two useless tags: Not only can %doc no longer be used to simply mark up documentation files as intended because it's being subverted to mean something it did not do before, but the only reason %license exists is as a hack to work around the previously mentioned hack.
That is not true. Please read up on what %license means and does. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c200
--- Comment #200 from Kristoffer Gronlund
(In reply to Kristoffer Gronlund from comment #198)
(In reply to Fabian Vogt from comment #197)
(In reply to Kristoffer Gronlund from comment #196)
Is it too late to object to this change, which is completely misguided?
Instead of breaking every single package by changing the meaning of "excludedocs" to mean "let me strip these files from the package", how about adding support for tagging files in an rpm as strippable or optional, so that not only documentation can be dropped when space is at a premium, but any other files that may not be essential for the functionality?
That's what optional subpackages are for though.
That way, every single package would still be OK even without any markup, and packages can be updated to mark files as optional over time. Instead, this %license macro now means that all packages that have used %doc to tag the LICENSE file somehow violate the GPL.
That excludedocs means that files tagged as %doc are not installed is absolutely set in stone and will not change.
I have no problem whatsoever with excludedocs meaning that files tagged as %doc are not installed.
I have a problem with excludedocs being used in a way that breaks the existing intention and usage of the %doc tag in spec files.
That's not the case. Marking license files as %doc is what broke intention here.
My point is that license files were being marked as %doc before the %license directive existed. It looks to me like this only became a concern when the idea of stripping docs from packages in order to make them smaller came up, and this is what I object to.
Whoever thought that using excludedocs to strip packages for inclusion in containers was a good idea was evidently wrong about that, as it required the introduction of the %license tag, so that there are now two useless tags: Not only can %doc no longer be used to simply mark up documentation files as intended because it's being subverted to mean something it did not do before, but the only reason %license exists is as a hack to work around the previously mentioned hack.
That is not true. Please read up on what %license means and does.
This is the document I read: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Use_license_macro_in_RPMs_for_package...
Use new %license macro to separate license files from documentation, so the latter can be excluded from container images without stripping license information which must be included.
I may be mistaken in saying that this was the original intention of the %license directive. In that case, instead of just the %doc directive being repurposed for reducing the size of cloud images, the same applies to %license. Though I find the license violation argument to smell of post-hoc reasoning after the idea of using nodocs to reduce the installation size was raised, of course I am not a lawyer. Unfortunately the pull request link in the commit which introduces the change no longer links correctly, so it's hard to follow the chain all the way back: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/commit/55bf9abee25c7d101dce15... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c201
--- Comment #201 from Fabian Vogt
This is the document I read:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ Use_license_macro_in_RPMs_for_packages_in_Cloud_Image
Use new %license macro to separate license files from documentation, so the latter can be excluded from container images without stripping license information which must be included.
I may be mistaken in saying that this was the original intention of the %license directive. In that case, instead of just the %doc directive being repurposed for reducing the size of cloud images, the same applies to %license. Though I find the license violation argument to smell of post-hoc reasoning after the idea of using nodocs to reduce the installation size was raised, of course I am not a lawyer. Unfortunately the pull request link in the commit which introduces the change no longer links correctly, so it's hard to follow the chain all the way back:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/commit/ 55bf9abee25c7d101dce15898ebefcbe77a7d655
%license also allows for stuff like "rpm -qL aaa_base".(In reply to Kristoffer Gronlund from comment #200)
(In reply to Fabian Vogt from comment #199)
(In reply to Kristoffer Gronlund from comment #198)
(In reply to Fabian Vogt from comment #197)
(In reply to Kristoffer Gronlund from comment #196)
Is it too late to object to this change, which is completely misguided?
Instead of breaking every single package by changing the meaning of "excludedocs" to mean "let me strip these files from the package", how about adding support for tagging files in an rpm as strippable or optional, so that not only documentation can be dropped when space is at a premium, but any other files that may not be essential for the functionality?
That's what optional subpackages are for though.
That way, every single package would still be OK even without any markup, and packages can be updated to mark files as optional over time. Instead, this %license macro now means that all packages that have used %doc to tag the LICENSE file somehow violate the GPL.
That excludedocs means that files tagged as %doc are not installed is absolutely set in stone and will not change.
I have no problem whatsoever with excludedocs meaning that files tagged as %doc are not installed.
I have a problem with excludedocs being used in a way that breaks the existing intention and usage of the %doc tag in spec files.
That's not the case. Marking license files as %doc is what broke intention here.
My point is that license files were being marked as %doc before the %license directive existed. It looks to me like this only became a concern when the idea of stripping docs from packages in order to make them smaller came up, and this is what I object to.
You object to the concept of excludedocs in general, right? That would be an entirely separate topic though, this bug is about migration to %license for license files.
Whoever thought that using excludedocs to strip packages for inclusion in containers was a good idea was evidently wrong about that, as it required the introduction of the %license tag, so that there are now two useless tags: Not only can %doc no longer be used to simply mark up documentation files as intended because it's being subverted to mean something it did not do before, but the only reason %license exists is as a hack to work around the previously mentioned hack.
That is not true. Please read up on what %license means and does.
This is the document I read:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ Use_license_macro_in_RPMs_for_packages_in_Cloud_Image
Use new %license macro to separate license files from documentation, so the latter can be excluded from container images without stripping license information which must be included.
I may be mistaken in saying that this was the original intention of the %license directive. In that case, instead of just the %doc directive being repurposed
%doc is meant to allow for exactly that, skipping installation of documentation. That licenses were marked as %doc was just wrong. That's also what the commit you linked below states.
for reducing the size of cloud images, the same applies to %license. Though I find the license violation argument to smell of post-hoc reasoning after the idea of using nodocs to reduce the installation size was raised, of course I am not a lawyer. Unfortunately the pull request link in the commit which introduces the change no longer links correctly, so it's hard to follow the chain all the way back:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/commit/ 55bf9abee25c7d101dce15898ebefcbe77a7d655
The biggest motivation for migration to %license is indeed to make sure that installations with excludedocs do not violate software licenses. That's not the only reason for %license though, it also allows to query the individual license files of packages and to ensure that every package ships its license file. Without %license that is not possible. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c202
--- Comment #202 from Kristoffer Gronlund
(In reply to Kristoffer Gronlund from comment #200)
(In reply to Fabian Vogt from comment #199)
(In reply to Kristoffer Gronlund from comment #198)
(In reply to Fabian Vogt from comment #197)
(In reply to Kristoffer Gronlund from comment #196)
Is it too late to object to this change, which is completely misguided?
Instead of breaking every single package by changing the meaning of "excludedocs" to mean "let me strip these files from the package", how about adding support for tagging files in an rpm as strippable or optional, so that not only documentation can be dropped when space is at a premium, but any other files that may not be essential for the functionality?
That's what optional subpackages are for though.
That way, every single package would still be OK even without any markup, and packages can be updated to mark files as optional over time. Instead, this %license macro now means that all packages that have used %doc to tag the LICENSE file somehow violate the GPL.
That excludedocs means that files tagged as %doc are not installed is absolutely set in stone and will not change.
I have no problem whatsoever with excludedocs meaning that files tagged as %doc are not installed.
I have a problem with excludedocs being used in a way that breaks the existing intention and usage of the %doc tag in spec files.
That's not the case. Marking license files as %doc is what broke intention here.
My point is that license files were being marked as %doc before the %license directive existed. It looks to me like this only became a concern when the idea of stripping docs from packages in order to make them smaller came up, and this is what I object to.
You object to the concept of excludedocs in general, right? That would be an entirely separate topic though, this bug is about migration to %license for license files.
My objection is to the reliance on excludedocs for reducing the size of container installations, and this being the reason for pushing the move to using %license. (at least, that is what it looks like to me). If the goal is to reduce the size of packages, I would prefer if that was done explicitly via directives introduced for that specific purpose. But sure, I'll give this meaningless crusade up and concede that %license has a legitimate use on its own. ;) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c206
--- Comment #206 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c208
--- Comment #208 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c209
--- Comment #209 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Guilherme Moro
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c213
--- Comment #213 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c221
--- Comment #221 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c222
--- Comment #222 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c224
--- Comment #224 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c225
--- Comment #225 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c228
--- Comment #228 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c231
--- Comment #231 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Maintenance Robot
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c232
--- Comment #232 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c234
--- Comment #234 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c235
--- Comment #235 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c236
--- Comment #236 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Maintenance Robot
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c241
--- Comment #241 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c243
--- Comment #243 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c244
--- Comment #244 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c245
--- Comment #245 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c247
--- Comment #247 from OBSbugzilla Bot
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Maintenance Robot
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c248
--- Comment #248 from Swamp Workflow Management
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Maintenance Robot
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Maintenance Robot
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Maintenance Robot
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Maintenance Robot
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c250
--- Comment #250 from Swamp Workflow Management
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Maintenance Robot
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Maintenance Robot
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Maintenance Robot
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c254
--- Comment #254 from OBSbugzilla Bot
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c255
--- Comment #255 from Swamp Workflow Management
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c256
--- Comment #256 from Swamp Workflow Management
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Maintenance Robot
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Maintenance Robot
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c260
--- Comment #260 from OBSbugzilla Bot
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c266
--- Comment #266 from Swamp Workflow Management
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Maintenance Robot
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c269
--- Comment #269 from Swamp Workflow Management
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c270
--- Comment #270 from Swamp Workflow Management
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
Maintenance Robot
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c275
--- Comment #275 from Swamp Workflow Management
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c297
--- Comment #297 from Swamp Workflow Management
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c310
--- Comment #310 from Swamp Workflow Management
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c312
--- Comment #312 from Swamp Workflow Management
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c314
--- Comment #314 from Swamp Workflow Management
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c315
--- Comment #315 from Swamp Workflow Management
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c313
--- Comment #313 from Swamp Workflow Management
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c311
--- Comment #311 from Swamp Workflow Management
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c316
--- Comment #316 from Swamp Workflow Management
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c317
--- Comment #317 from Swamp Workflow Management
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c320
--- Comment #320 from Swamp Workflow Management
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c321
--- Comment #321 from Swamp Workflow Management
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c330
--- Comment #330 from Swamp Workflow Management
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c332
--- Comment #332 from Swamp Workflow Management
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c333
--- Comment #333 from Swamp Workflow Management
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c334
--- Comment #334 from Swamp Workflow Management
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082318#c340
--- Comment #340 from Swamp Workflow Management
participants (2)
-
bugzilla_noreply@novell.com
-
bugzilla_noreply@suse.com