Marcus Rueckert wrote:
On 2007-07-31 13:35:59 +0200, Petr Cerny wrote:
Johannes Meixner wrote:
Hello,
On Jul 30 17:26 Juergen Weigert wrote (shortened):
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 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