2010/7/8 Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa(a)redhat.com>:
On 07/08/2010 04:12 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 16:29:01 -0400, Tom wrote:
>
>> However, if a subpackage is independent of any base package (it does
>> not require it, either implicitly or explicitly), it must include
>> copies of any license texts (as present in the source) which are
>> applicable to the files contained within the subpackage.
>
> With this we've reached the point once more where the default %doc dir is
> a poor choice, because it is based on the subpackage's %{name} instead of
> the src.rpm's or base package's %{name}.
>
> For the common tools'n'library split of a package, the changed guidelines
> duplicate the license files by storing them in two different directories
> when using %doc:
>
> /usr/share/doc/name-1.0/COPYING
> /usr/share/doc/name-libs-1.0/COPYING
Yes, I absolutely understand that. The intent is to minimize this by
leveraging dependencies (tools depends on libs). A common, system-wide
directory for license files to be dropped into is a recipe for disaster
(COPYING conflicts with COPYING).
Dose this mean we only need to add license text to -libs subpackage
instead of base package if we assume the base package depends on -libs
subpackage?
Chen Lei