Dne pondělí 23 červenec 2007 17:00 Stephan Kulow napsal(a):

Am Montag 23 Juli 2007 schrieb Lukas Ocilka:

...

Jiri Srain wrote:

...

Are we really allowed to ship the package without the text of the license?

OTOH, currently there are two copies of the license in the package, and (at least according to RPMlint) they can be replaced by a link to package containing licenses.

My patch didn't remove the license from the original yast2-installation

:) The same (license) file is in both yast2-installation and

yast2-installation-doc.

It doesn't have to be in yast2-installation-doc - it has to be in the sources and it's good to have it in one of the binary packages. It doesn't have to be in every one of them.

Do we want to call these packages -doc? It may be confusing, one may expect the end-user documentation in these packages, but what he finds is (mostly) the autogenerated documentation targeted for developers. We already have eg. the yast2-devel package which contains only documentation for developers. I'd find it consistent calling the packages this way (eg. yast2-installatoin-devel in thexample above). I checked with local packagers, there is no rule on how such packages should be caleld. There are already some -devel-doc packages in autobuild, but they are just about five. Any other ideas? Jiri -- Regards, Jiri Srain YaST Team Leader --------------------------------------------------------------------- SUSE LINUX, s.r.o. e-mail: jsrain@suse.cz Lihovarska 1060/12 tel: +420 284 028 959 190 00 Praha 9 fax: +420 284 028 951 Czech Republic http://www.suse.cz