Closed remicollet closed 10 years ago
Parent5446
commented
11 years ago The license is included at the bottom of the README file. The packaging guidelines you listed have no requirement that the license be in its own file. It only says "If the source package does not include the text of the license(s), the packager should contact upstream and encourage them to correct this mistake." But since the source package does include in the text of the license, we're in the clear.
remicollet
commented
11 years ago Yes, sorry, I miss it.
But, the README is mostly a "INSTALL" file. So its content have no interest to be packaged (when the package is installed, those instruction are no more usefull).
The reason why it is cleaner to have separate README, INSTALL, POSTINSTALL, LICENSE files.
But, we can live with a single file...
pierrejoye
commented
11 years ago I would suggest to follow @remicollet advice.
We will certainly add some checks soon to pecl.php.net to reject a release if LICENSE is missing.
DomBlack
commented
11 years ago @pierrejoye I was under the impression that pecl checked the package.xml file for the license?
pierrejoye
commented
11 years ago not for the LICENSE file.
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 10:08 AM, Dominic Black notifications@github.comwrote:
@pierrejoye https://github.com/pierrejoye I was under the impression that pecl checked the package.xml file for the license?
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/DomBlack/php-scrypt/issues/19#issuecomment-25790965 .
Pierre
@pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org
remicollet
commented
11 years ago Additional note : the README.md and CREDITS files should also role="doc"
From BSD License:
Fedora Packaging Guidelines requires (to respect the License term) that each RPM includes the LICENSE file, when provided by upstream, and to request for it when missing.
So I do.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text