https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=974737
--- Comment #8 from Michael Schwendt <mschwe...@gmail.com> --- There seems to be some language barriers. So, let's see: * Two packages are built: svni.noarch svni-vim.noarch * svni-vim "Requires: svni = …" Therefore the subpackage licensing guidelines apply: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Subpackage_Licensing That means, svni-vim does NOT need to include a copy of the license file "COPYING" as %doc, because that file is included in the required base package already. _If_ svni-vim didn't require the base svni package, it would need to include the license file as %doc. Per the guidelines. With regard to the other %doc files (non-license files), there are no other guidelines that mandate a subpackage dependency of some sort. Except if documentation files are strictly needed at run-time (for example, if a GUI contains a menu item to display them), they would need to be handled appropriately. But that's no issue here. > License: GPLv3+ The executable _and_ the manual page say it's "GPLv3". There's no "or later" clause. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=YDm7Mqg1z7&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
