On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 23:13 +0100, Tim Jackson wrote:
There seems to be some confusion about including the license file in
a
package. I have been told two more-or-less contradictory things in two
very similar packages. Unfortunately I can't find the wiki citation
about this right now, but...
php-pear-DB (
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=176733):
"You do not have to bring in the license from an external source."
php-pear-PEAR-Command-Packaging
(
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=185423):
"SHOULD FIX: Include actual license in %doc"
OK, so they're not actually contradictory. But we really ought to have
some consistency here. If the license file isn't distributed with the
package, we should have a clear policy: either we pull it in from an
external source (maybe if that's "reasonably" possible, i.e. it's
distributed on a public URL as a standalone file), or we don't.
Otherwise we just lengthen package reviews and cause the precious time
of packagers to be wasted with repeated pointless discussions and
re-spins of packages.
I really don't care what the policy is - I don't mind whether or not I
have to pull external license files into my packages, I just think there
should be an unambiguous policy so that I don't have to have this debate
every time I do a package. Plus we have at least some consistency for users.
The policy is very clear IMHO:
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines
MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of
the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing
the text of the license(s) for the package must be included
in %doc.
Paul.