On Tue, 6 Sep 2011 13:55, Paul Elliott
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) 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. Yamaban. PS: Sorry for the rant, but themata "Licence included in everthing" becomes absurd. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org