Bug 613705 - foomatic-db-ppds subpackage must also include a copy of license text
Summary: foomatic-db-ppds subpackage must also include a copy of license text
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6
Classification: Red Hat
Component: foomatic-db
Version: 6.1
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
low
low
Target Milestone: rc
: ---
Assignee: Zdenek Dohnal
QA Contact: Desktop QE
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords: EasyFix, FastFix
Depends On:
Blocks: 1373253
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2010-07-12 15:48 UTC by Jiri Popelka
Modified: 2017-03-21 10:05 UTC (History)
5 users (show)

(edit)
Clone Of:
(edit)
Last Closed: 2017-03-21 10:05:54 UTC


Attachments (Terms of Use)


External Trackers
Tracker ID Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Product Errata RHBA-2017:0649 normal SHIPPED_LIVE foomatic-db bug fix update 2017-03-21 12:32:32 UTC

Description Jiri Popelka 2010-07-12 15:48:42 UTC
COPYING file is only included in base package, i.e. foomatic-db.
According to Fedora Licensing Guidelines
the -ppds subpackage must also include a copy of license text.


From
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2010-July/138487.html
Q. My package generates a foo and foo-libs package. foo has the license
files, and foo depends on foo-libs, but foo-libs doesn't have any
license files in it. What should I do?
A. You have two options here. You can either move the license texts from
foo to foo-libs or duplicate the license texts in both packages. Moving
the license texts is an acceptable option in this case because it
ensures that if foo-libs is installed, the license texts are present,
and if foo is installed, it will pull in foo-libs, thus, the license
texts are present.



Additional info:
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2010-July/138487.html
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2010-July/138546.html
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/scm-commits/2010-July/460714.html

Comment 3 Suzanne Yeghiayan 2011-02-15 21:40:17 UTC
This issue was proposed for RHEL 6.1 FasTrack but did not get resolved in time.
It has been moved to RHEL 6.2 FasTrack.

Comment 5 Suzanne Yeghiayan 2011-02-15 22:03:48 UTC
This issue was proposed for RHEL 6.1 FasTrack but did not get resolved in time.
It has been moved to RHEL 6.2 FasTrack.

Comment 9 RHEL Product and Program Management 2012-07-10 05:48:18 UTC
This request was not resolved in time for the current release.
Red Hat invites you to ask your support representative to
propose this request, if still desired, for consideration in
the next release of Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Comment 10 RHEL Product and Program Management 2012-07-10 23:13:38 UTC
This request was erroneously removed from consideration in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.4, which is currently under development.  This request will be evaluated for inclusion in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.4.

Comment 22 errata-xmlrpc 2017-03-21 10:05:54 UTC
Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.

For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.

If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.

https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2017-0649.html


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.