[opensuse-packaging] %license macro
Hi, my question: What is the consent on using the %license macro? I noticed this is available since Leap, but only works for 42.2 and newer. (42.1 does not know the "/usr/share/licenses" directory). Are packagers encouraged to use if for packages or should we still use %doc for licenses? I am personally use it for new packages with an "if 42.1 then doc". And I read the discussion in openSUSE-factory and I know the advantage of %license is that you can strip %doc from the package if not needed (e.g. use less space in containers...) and still ship the license (which is in most cases mandatory according to license terms). But I see rather few packages using %license. Regards, Ferdinand -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org
1. It doesn't look like the %license tag is currently supported by Leap 42.1. Please just put the license file in the %doc section until
Hi, I do prefer %license before %doc for new packages, as new packages are only relevant for new distributions anyway. But one request was declined because of this, so I changed it to %doc there[1]: proper support is in place. It'd be nice if %license would be backwards-compatible interpreted as %doc in Leap < 42.2. Sebastian [1]: https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/448891 On 02/20/2017 08:39 PM, Ferdinand Thiessen wrote:
Hi,
my question: What is the consent on using the %license macro? I noticed this is available since Leap, but only works for 42.2 and newer.
(42.1 does not know the "/usr/share/licenses" directory).
Are packagers encouraged to use if for packages or should we still use %doc for licenses? I am personally use it for new packages with an "if 42.1 then doc".
And I read the discussion in openSUSE-factory and I know the advantage of %license is that you can strip %doc from the package if not needed (e.g. use less space in containers...) and still ship the license (which is in most cases mandatory according to license terms). But I see rather few packages using %license.
Regards,
Ferdinand
-- python programming - mail server - photo - video - https://sebix.at cryptographic key at https://sebix.at/DC9B463B.asc and on public keyservers
Am 20.02.2017 um 20:59 schrieb Sebastian:
Hi,
I do prefer %license before %doc for new packages, as new packages are only relevant for new distributions anyway.
1. It doesn't look like the %license tag is currently supported by Leap 42.1. Please just put the license file in the %doc section until
But one request was declined because of this, so I changed it to %doc there[1]: proper support is in place.
It'd be nice if %license would be backwards-compatible interpreted as %doc in Leap < 42.2.
The macro itself is fine, but the directory is not owned - and it's tricky to fix that now :( The only thing I can think of is some hook before build that patches the spec file within OBS. Greetings, Stephan -- Ma muaß weiterkämpfen, kämpfen bis zum Umfalln, a wenn die ganze Welt an Arsch offen hat, oder grad deswegn.
Am 20.02.2017 um 21:51 schrieb Stephan Kulow:
Am 20.02.2017 um 20:59 schrieb Sebastian:
Leap 42.1. Please just put the license file in the %doc section until proper support is in place.
It'd be nice if %license would be backwards-compatible interpreted as %doc in Leap < 42.2.
The macro itself is fine, but the directory is not owned - and it's tricky to fix that now :(
The only thing I can think of is some hook before build that patches the spec file within OBS.
Greetings, Stephan
In few month 42.1 is out of support, no sure if a hack like this would be worth the time. But I also noticed an issue with 42.2 or more specific with RPMLint: [ 92s] libfifechan0_1_4.x86_64: W: shlib-policy-nonversioned-dir /usr/share/licenses [ 92s] Your shared library package contains non-versioned directories. Those will not [ 92s] allow to install multiple versions of the package in parallel. It complains about "nonversioned directory", but it is versioned: /usr/share/licenses/libfifechan0_1_4/LICENSE Regards, Ferdinand -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org
On 22.02.17 14:10 Ferdinand Thiessen wrote:
[ 92s] Your shared library package contains non-versioned directories.
It complains about "nonversioned directory", but it is versioned: /usr/share/licenses/libfifechan0_1_4/LICENSE
It actually talks about the directories, and /usr/share/licenses is not versioned... Johannes
Am 22.02.2017 um 16:39 schrieb Johannes Kastl:
It complains about "nonversioned directory", but it is versioned: /usr/share/licenses/libfifechan0_1_4/LICENSE It actually talks about the directories, and /usr/share/licenses is not versioned...
Johannes
Yes but that would be the same as complaining that /usr/share/doc/packages is not versioned. Ferdinand -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org
On 22.02.17 17:32 Ferdinand Thiessen wrote:
Yes but that would be the same as complaining that /usr/share/doc/packages is not versioned.
You would get the same warning if your package also had that directory in its %files list (or maybe a warning that this directory is owned by another package, maybe aaa_base). In other words: Your spec file seems to container not only the directories *under* /usr/share/licenses/, but also this exact directory. Change this: /usr/share/licenses => /usr/share/licenses/* Johannes
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Sebastian <sebix@sebix.at> wrote:
Hi,
I do prefer %license before %doc for new packages, as new packages are only relevant for new distributions anyway.
Lots of projects support new packages on old distributions. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org
participants (5)
-
Ferdinand Thiessen -
Johannes Kastl -
Sebastian -
Stephan Kulow -
Todd Rme