www-repository mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Steve Loughran" <steve.lough...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: POM licensing
Date Sun, 30 Sep 2007 18:18:51 GMT
On 30/09/2007, Robert Burrell Donkin <rdonkin@apache.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-09-30 at 17:52 +0100, Steve Loughran wrote:

>
> > Interestingly, most RPM .spec files that I've worked with (jpackage,
> > and stuff of my own doing) does include license info.
>
> interesting
>
> just a license (for the collective) or more detailed information?

well, jpackage related stuff is all I've worked with, and they lead by example:

http://www.jpackage.org/template.spec

And as most people doing java RPMs start with these, it propagates

http://smartfrog.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/smartfrog/trunk/core/release/metadata/rpm/smartfrog.spec?view=markup

now, I'm not a fan of RPMs (and the jpackage mail list has publicly
denounced me, so I unsubscribed), but with enough effort they can be
made to work. Its just a painful amount of effort and you need to test
on *every* target OS, at least if you want init.d scripts to install
and run properly.

The license info is just comments though; no proper machine readable
content. To be brutal, .spec files themselves are barely machine
readable. They get turned by rpmbuild into a set of scripts that are
guaranteed not to work propery at uninstall time once your OS has
started to get even a hint inconsistent.

-steve

Mime
View raw message