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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
