On 2007-08-31 14:13:34 +0200, Christian Boltz wrote:

creating the symlink to licenses in the licenses package is curently done by including a small script in each spec file, like:

for FILE in COPYING copyright.txt ; do MD5SUM=$(md5sum $FILE | sed 's/ .*//') if test -f /usr/share/doc/licenses/md5/$MD5SUM ; then ln -sf /usr/share/doc/licenses/md5/$MD5SUM $FILE fi done

This is error-prone (see bug 306681) and adds lots of duplicated code to the spec files.

Please add a small script to the licenses package or create a rpm macro that creates the symlink. If the rpm macro could also drop in a "Requires: licenses", it would be even better.

The specfile should then contain commands like (replacing the example above):

%symlink_license COPYING %symlink_license copyright.txt

Oh, and please do this ASAP, before more package(r)s include the script in the spec file ;-)

what bugnumber is that? darix -- openSUSE - SUSE Linux is my linux openSUSE is good for you www.opensuse.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org

On 2007-08-31 14:20:21 +0200, Lukas Ocilka wrote:

Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 14:20:21 +0200 From: Lukas Ocilka Subject: Re: [opensuse-packaging] Handling license symlinks To: Christian Boltz Cc: opensuse-packaging@opensuse.org X-DSPAM-Result: Innocent X-DSPAM-Confidence: 0.9906 X-DSPAM-Probability: 0.0000

Christian Boltz wrote:

...

Hello,

creating the symlink to licenses in the licenses package is curently done by including a small script in each spec file, like:

for FILE in COPYING copyright.txt ; do MD5SUM=$(md5sum $FILE | sed 's/ .*//') if test -f /usr/share/doc/licenses/md5/$MD5SUM ; then ln -sf /usr/share/doc/licenses/md5/$MD5SUM $FILE fi done

This is error-prone (see bug 306681) and adds lots of duplicated code to the spec files.

Please add a small script to the licenses package or create a rpm macro that creates the symlink. If the rpm macro could also drop in a "Requires: licenses", it would be even better.

We already tried to solve this issue. The problem is (also) that there is no known list of license filenames (COPYING, copyright.txt, Copyright.txt, COPYING.english ...)

Anyway, I'd be still for having the macro, probably two of them:

1.) automatic macro that tries known filenames 2.) manual macro that expects filenames as a parameter

Adding or checking whether RPM requires 'licenses' would be very nice!

we could run md5sum on all files in the documentation directory of the package and compare those against the known licenses md5sums. should be easy with a simple perl/python script. darix -- openSUSE - SUSE Linux is my linux openSUSE is good for you www.opensuse.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org

On Friday, 31. August 2007, Philipp Thomas wrote:

How about this (untestet):

a) buildrequires licenses missing b) the %doc macro runs after postinstall scripts, so one still has to update the %doc macro specs an easier fix would be to add a post-prep script hook that will just replace "COPYING" in the source dir with a symlink, so that %doc just copies the symlink into the package. Greetings, Dirk --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org

Richard Guenther wrote:

On Mon, 3 Sep 2007, Juergen Weigert wrote:

...

... Unfortunatly, this licenses package is error prone. Not very probable, but with possbile severe effects: if a package has a symlink for GPL, but this link is dangling, we violate the GPL.

Does anybody know if the licenses package had a space saving effect on the media?

Any tears if we roll back to the state we had before?

Well, I proposed to handle this problem with rpm provides / requires. That is, licenses should provide license-$MD5 for all licenses it includes and a package with the symlink should require this. That way no dangling symlink can happen unless you install with --nodeps.

Libzypp supports --nodeps as a fallback solution for installing RPMs. First, it, of course, tries to install an RPM in a normal way, then libzypp tries that with --nodeps automatically. So even our package manager is able to install such package without installing licenses.rpm. Lukas

On Mon, 3 Sep 2007, Juergen Weigert wrote:

On Aug 31, 07 15:04:30 +0200, Dirk Mueller wrote:

...

On Friday, 31. August 2007, Philipp Thomas wrote:

...

How about this (untestet):

a) buildrequires licenses missing b) the %doc macro runs after postinstall scripts, so one still has to update the %doc macro specs

an easier fix would be to add a post-prep script hook that will just replace "COPYING" in the source dir with a symlink, so that %doc just copies the symlink into the package.

I am currently undecided, weather the licenses package is a good idea at all. I started the licenses package, to have a centralized directory, where all licenses in a product can be found.

Unfortunatly licenses package currently populates /usr/share/doc/licenses with all licenses in the distribution, without revealing which licenses belong to installed and available packages.

Unfortunatly, this licenses package is error prone. Not very probable, but with possbile severe effects: if a package has a symlink for GPL, but this link is dangling, we violate the GPL.

Does anybody know if the licenses package had a space saving effect on the media?

Any tears if we roll back to the state we had before?

Well, I proposed to handle this problem with rpm provides / requires. That is, licenses should provide license-$MD5 for all licenses it includes and a package with the symlink should require this. That way no dangling symlink can happen unless you install with --nodeps. Richard. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org

On Monday, 3. September 2007, Lukas Ocilka wrote:

Libzypp supports --nodeps as a fallback solution for installing RPMs. First, it, of course, tries to install an RPM in a normal way, then libzypp tries that with --nodeps automatically.

Thats not a reason. we rely on package dependencies already for other licensing issues, and this would be no different. otherwise you could also say that if a user installs all his pacakges with all files but the COPYING file would also be a licensing violation. -- RPMLINT information under http://en.opensuse.org/Packaging/RpmLint --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org

On Sep 03, 07 13:39:30 +0200, Dirk Mueller wrote:

On Monday, 3. September 2007, Lukas Ocilka wrote:

...

Libzypp supports --nodeps as a fallback solution for installing RPMs. First, it, of course, tries to install an RPM in a normal way, then libzypp tries that with --nodeps automatically.

Thats not a reason. we rely on package dependencies already for other licensing issues, and this would be no different.

Which other issues would that be?

otherwise you could also say that if a user installs all his pacakges with all files but the COPYING file would also be a licensing violation.

A distributor must ship the COPYING file, a user may ignore it. If our default installers fail to install it, then we may have a GPL violation. If a user explicitly disables its installation, he is fine. cheers, JW. -- o \ Juergen Weigert paint it green! __/ _=======.=======_ <V> | jw@suse.de wide open suse_/ _---|____________\/ \ | 0911 74053-508 (tm)__/ (____/ /\ (/) | __________________________/ _/ \_ vim:set sw=2 wm=8 SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nuernberg) "This bug is visible to non-employees. Please be respectful." (bugzilla) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org

Juergen Weigert writes:

Any tears if we roll back to the state we had before?

No, not at all. It was a nice experience, but in the end not worth the effort. Just über-engineered. Try to keep it simple, also the packaging process. -- Karl Eichwalder R&D / Documentation SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nuernberg) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org

On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 10:13:41AM +0200, Bubli wrote:

...

not even all the yast2 packages which contain COPYING twice are fixed even though I filed a bugreport a couple of months ago),

Bug #? Pardon me my ignorance, but I haven't see any such bug although I maintain 5+ YaST packages

https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=299144 "yast2* packages contain both COPYING and COPYRIGHT.english" I will apply the fix after 10.3. -- Martin Vidner, YaST developer http://en.opensuse.org/User:Mvidner Kuracke oddeleni v restauraci je jako fekalni oddeleni v bazenu --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org