From Fedora Project Wiki
(create from template)
 
(Add missing tracker bug)
 
(9 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{admon/important | Comments and Explanations | The page source contains comments providing guidance to fill out each section. They are invisible when viewing this page. To read it, choose the "edit" link.<br/> '''Copy the source to a ''new page'' before making changes!  DO NOT EDIT THIS TEMPLATE FOR YOUR CHANGE PROPOSAL.'''}}
= Use license macro in RPMs for packages in Cloud Image =
 
<!-- Self Contained or System Wide Change Proposal?
Use this guide to determine to which category your proposed change belongs to.
 
Self Contained Changes are:
* changes to isolated/leaf package without the impact on other packages/rest of the distribution
* limited scope changes without the impact on other packages/rest of the distribution
* coordinated effort within SIG with limited impact outside SIG functional area, accepted by the SIG
 
System Wide Changes are:
* changes that does not fit Self Contained Changes category touching
* changes that require coordination within the distribution (for example mass rebuilds, release engineering or other teams effort etc.)
* changing system defaults
 
For Self Contained Changes, sections marked as "REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES" are OPTIONAL but FESCo/Wrangler can request more details (especially in case the change proposal category is
improper or updated to System Wide category). For System Wide Changes all fields on this form are required for FESCo acceptance (when applies). 
 
We request that you maintain the same order of sections so that all of the change proposal pages are uniform.
-->
 
<!-- The actual name of your proposed change page should look something like: Changes/Your_Change_Proposal_Name.  This keeps all change proposals in the same namespace -->
 
= Change Proposal Name <!-- The name of your change proposal --> =


== Summary ==
== Summary ==
<!-- A sentence or two summarizing what this change is and what it will do. This information is used for the overall changeset summary page for each release. -->
Use new %license macro to separate license files from documentation, so the latter can be excluded from container images without stripping license information which must be included.


== Owner ==
== Owner ==
<!--
* Name: [[User:mattdm| Matthew Miller]], [[User:spot|Tom Callaway]]
For change proposals to qualify as self-contained, owners of all affected packages need to be included here. Alternatively, a SIG can be listed as an owner if it owns all affected packages.
* Email: mattdm at fedoraproject, spot at fedoraproject
This should link to your home wiki page so we know who you are.
-->
* Name: [[User:FASAcountName| Your Name]]
<!-- Include you email address that you can be reached should people want to contact you about helping with your change, status is requested, or technical issues need to be resolved. If the change proposal is owned by a SIG, please also add a primary contact person. -->
* Email: <your email address so we can contact you, invite you to meetings, etc.>
* Release notes owner: <!--- To be assigned by docs team [[User:FASAccountName| Release notes owner name]] <email address> -->
* Release notes owner: <!--- To be assigned by docs team [[User:FASAccountName| Release notes owner name]] <email address> -->
<!--- UNCOMMENT only for Changes with assigned Shepherd (by FESCo)
<!--- UNCOMMENT only for Changes with assigned Shepherd (by FESCo)
* FESCo shepherd: [[User:FASAccountName| Shehperd name]] <email address>
* FESCo shepherd: [[User:FASAccountName| Shehperd name]] <email address>
-->
-->
<!--- UNCOMMENT only if this Change aims specific product, working group (Cloud, Workstation, Server, Base, Env & Stacks)
* Product: Cloud
* Product:
* Responsible WG: Cloud WG
* Responsible WG:
-->


== Current status ==
== Current status ==
* Targeted release: [[Releases/<number> | Fedora <number> ]]  
* Targeted release: [[Releases/21 | Fedora 21]]  
* Last updated: (DATE)
* Last updated: 2014-04-13
<!-- After the change proposal is accepted by FESCo, tracking bug is created in Bugzilla and linked to this page  
<!-- After the change proposal is accepted by FESCo, tracking bug is created in Bugzilla and linked to this page  
Bugzilla states meaning as usual:
Bugzilla states meaning as usual:
Line 55: Line 25:
CLOSED as NEXTRELEASE -> change is completed and verified and will be delivered in next release under development
CLOSED as NEXTRELEASE -> change is completed and verified and will be delivered in next release under development
-->
-->
* Tracker bug: <will be assigned by the Wrangler>
* Tracker bug: [https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152022 #1152022]


== Detailed Description ==
== Detailed Description ==
<!-- Expand on the summary, if appropriate.  A couple sentences suffices to explain the goal, but the more details you can provide the better. -->


== Benefit to Fedora ==
Background:
<!-- What is the benefit to the platform?  If this is a major capability update, what has changed?  If this is a new functionality, what capabilities does it bring? Why will Fedora become a better distribution or project because of this proposal?-->
 
# Right now, license files are required to be marked as %doc files.
# There has long been a "nodocs" parameter to RPM which skips all doc files.
# In addition to the desired space-savings, this installs packages without their possibly-mandatory license files
 
This interaction hasn't been problematic before, because generally using nodocs is an endpoint choice with no distribution after that. But now, we are looking at building some official cloud and container images with nodocs, so it suddenly becomes important.


== Scope ==
As a bonus, in the future, %license may handle automatic hardlinking of identical license files.
<!-- What work do the developers have to accomplish to complete the change in time for release?  Is it a large change affecting many parts of the distribution or is it a very isolated change? What are those changes?-->


* Proposal owners:
Specifically, I propose:
<!-- What work do the feature owners have to accomplish to complete the feature in time for release?  Is it a large change affecting many parts of the distribution or is it a very isolated change? What are those changes?-->


* Other developers: N/A (not a System Wide Change) <!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES -->
# We change the guidelines
<!-- What work do other developers have to accomplish to complete the feature in time for release?  Is it a large change affecting many parts of the distribution or is it a very isolated change? What are those changes?-->
# We start doing it for new packages
# We file a F21 system-wide change (that is, ''this'' change) for a proven packager to change all the packages that land in the cloud image for F21 (roughly, @core + dependencies plus a few extras)
# We may file a similar change for other packages in the base design for F22, but the work/reward ratio is much lower.
# It may also be valuable to focus on a few key packages commonly used in Docker images (like httpd)
# Other packages updated on a as-time-permits/best-effort basis.


* Release engineering: N/A (not a System Wide Change)  <!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES -->
== Benefit to Fedora ==
<!-- Does this feature require coordination with release engineering (e.g. changes to installer image generation or update package delivery)?  Is a mass rebuid required?  If a rel-eng ticket exists, add a link here. -->
Allows us to distribute minimal images without bulky documentation but including required license texts.


* Policies and guidelines: N/A (not a System Wide Change) <!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES -->
== Scope ==
<!-- Do the packaging guidelines or other documents need to be updated for this feature?  If so, does it need to happen before or after the implementation is done?  If a FPC ticket exists, add a link here. -->
* Proposal owners: Update guidelines. Identify target packages. Tom will use provenpackager to make changes to spec files.
* Other developers: Be aware of possible provenpackager changes. Update other packages on best-effort basis if interested.
* Release engineering: none
* Policies and guidelines: Yes; packaging guidelines change. See https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/411


== Upgrade/compatibility impact ==
== Upgrade/compatibility impact ==
<!-- What happens to systems that have had a previous versions of Fedora installed and are updated to the version containing this change? Will anything require manual configuration or data migration? Will any existing functionality be no longer supported? -->
No impact on upgrades.
 
<!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES -->
N/A (not a System Wide Change)


== How To Test ==
== How To Test ==
<!-- This does not need to be a full-fledged document. Describe the dimensions of tests that this change implementation is expected to pass when it is done.  If it needs to be tested with different hardware or software configurations, indicate them.  The more specific you can be, the better the community testing can be.
Look at a cloud image; license files for packages which require them should be included in /usr/share/licenses
 
Remember that you are writing this how to for interested testers to use to check out your change implementation - documenting what you do for testing is OK, but it's much better to document what *I* can do to test your change.
 
A good "how to test" should answer these four questions:
 
0. What special hardware / data / etc. is needed (if any)?
1. How do I prepare my system to test this change? What packages
need to be installed, config files edited, etc.?
2. What specific actions do I perform to check that the change is
working like it's supposed to?
3. What are the expected results of those actions?
-->
 
<!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES -->
N/A (not a System Wide Change)


== User Experience ==
== User Experience ==
<!-- If this change proposal is noticeable by its target audience, how will their experiences change as a result?  Describe what they will see or notice. -->
People may be accustomed to looking for licenses files in the %doc directory. Due to the implementation in RPM, these files will now be in a separate /usr/share/licenses hierarchy. Until all packages are changed, however, many will still be in /usr/doc.
<!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES -->
N/A (not a System Wide Change)


== Dependencies ==
== Dependencies ==
<!-- What other packages (RPMs) depend on this package?  Are there changes outside the developers' control on which completion of this change depends?  In other words, completion of another change owned by someone else and might cause you to not be able to finish on time or that you would need to coordinate?  Other upstream projects like the kernel (if this is not a kernel change)? -->
This is a requirement for [[Changes/Smaller_Cloud_Image_Footprint]], because documentation is both unnecessary and a meaningful fraction of the overhead. It would also be nice to have for other cloud images.
 
<!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES -->
N/A (not a System Wide Change)


== Contingency Plan ==
== Contingency Plan ==
<!-- If you cannot complete your feature by the final development freeze, what is the backup plan?  This might be as simple as "Revert the shipped configuration".  Or it might not (e.g. rebuilding a number of dependent packages).  If you feature is not completed in time we want to assure others that other parts of Fedora will not be in jeopardy.  -->
* Contingency mechanism: ship all images with docs included
* Contingency mechanism: (What to do?  Who will do it?) N/A (not a System Wide Change)  <!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES -->
* Contingency deadline: beta change deadline
<!-- When is the last time the contingency mechanism can be put in place?  This will typically be the beta freeze. -->
* Blocks release? no
* Contingency deadline: N/A (not a System Wide Change)  <!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES -->
* Blocks product? no
<!-- Does finishing this feature block the release, or can we ship with the feature in incomplete state? -->
* Blocks release? N/A (not a System Wide Change), Yes/No <!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES -->
* Blocks product? product <!-- Applicable for Changes that blocks specific product release/Fedora.next -->


== Documentation ==
== Documentation ==
<!-- Is there upstream documentation on this change, or notes you have written yourself?  Link to that material here so other interested developers can get involved. -->
The FPC ticket and future guidelines will provide the required documentation.
 
<!-- REQUIRED FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES -->
N/A (not a System Wide Change)


== Release Notes ==
== Release Notes ==
<!-- The Fedora Release Notes inform end-users about what is new in the release. Examples of past release notes are here: http://docs.fedoraproject.org/release-notes/ -->
Packages which are included in the official Fedora Docker Image (NOTE: update with actual images affected) now use a special location for license files, allowing those packages to be shipped with no other documentation. These licenses are found under the /usr/share/licenses hierarchy, rather than /usr/share/docs.
<!-- The release notes also help users know how to deal with platform changes such as ABIs/APIs, configuration or data file formats, or upgrade concerns.  If there are any such changes involved in this change, indicate them here.  A link to upstream documentation will often satisfy this need.  This information forms the basis of the release notes edited by the documentation team and shipped with the release.  


Release Notes are not required for initial draft of the Change Proposal but has to be completed by the Change Freeze.  
Migration of other packages to this new standard will be on a best-effort basis, so many packages will continue to have license files under /usr/share/docs and not in the new location.
-->


[[Category:ChangePageIncomplete]]
[[Category:ChangeAcceptedF21]]
<!-- When your change proposal page is completed and ready for review and announcement -->
<!-- remove Category:ChangePageIncomplete and change it to Category:ChangeReadyForWrangler -->
<!-- The Wrangler announces the Change to the devel-announce list and changes the category to Category:ChangeAnnounced (no action required) -->  
<!-- The Wrangler announces the Change to the devel-announce list and changes the category to Category:ChangeAnnounced (no action required) -->  
<!-- After review, the Wrangler will move your page to Category:ChangeReadyForFesco... if it still needs more work it will move back to Category:ChangePageIncomplete-->
<!-- After review, the Wrangler will move your page to Category:ChangeReadyForFesco... if it still needs more work it will move back to Category:ChangePageIncomplete-->


<!-- Select proper category, default is Self Contained Change -->
[[Category:SystemWideChange]]
[[Category:SelfContainedChange]]
<!-- [[Category:SystemWideChange]] -->

Latest revision as of 15:21, 13 October 2014

Use license macro in RPMs for packages in Cloud Image

Summary

Use new %license macro to separate license files from documentation, so the latter can be excluded from container images without stripping license information which must be included.

Owner

  • Name: Matthew Miller, Tom Callaway
  • Email: mattdm at fedoraproject, spot at fedoraproject
  • Release notes owner:
  • Product: Cloud
  • Responsible WG: Cloud WG

Current status

Detailed Description

Background:

  1. Right now, license files are required to be marked as %doc files.
  2. There has long been a "nodocs" parameter to RPM which skips all doc files.
  3. In addition to the desired space-savings, this installs packages without their possibly-mandatory license files

This interaction hasn't been problematic before, because generally using nodocs is an endpoint choice with no distribution after that. But now, we are looking at building some official cloud and container images with nodocs, so it suddenly becomes important.

As a bonus, in the future, %license may handle automatic hardlinking of identical license files.

Specifically, I propose:

  1. We change the guidelines
  2. We start doing it for new packages
  3. We file a F21 system-wide change (that is, this change) for a proven packager to change all the packages that land in the cloud image for F21 (roughly, @core + dependencies plus a few extras)
  4. We may file a similar change for other packages in the base design for F22, but the work/reward ratio is much lower.
  5. It may also be valuable to focus on a few key packages commonly used in Docker images (like httpd)
  6. Other packages updated on a as-time-permits/best-effort basis.

Benefit to Fedora

Allows us to distribute minimal images without bulky documentation but including required license texts.

Scope

  • Proposal owners: Update guidelines. Identify target packages. Tom will use provenpackager to make changes to spec files.
  • Other developers: Be aware of possible provenpackager changes. Update other packages on best-effort basis if interested.
  • Release engineering: none
  • Policies and guidelines: Yes; packaging guidelines change. See https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/411

Upgrade/compatibility impact

No impact on upgrades.

How To Test

Look at a cloud image; license files for packages which require them should be included in /usr/share/licenses

User Experience

People may be accustomed to looking for licenses files in the %doc directory. Due to the implementation in RPM, these files will now be in a separate /usr/share/licenses hierarchy. Until all packages are changed, however, many will still be in /usr/doc.

Dependencies

This is a requirement for Changes/Smaller_Cloud_Image_Footprint, because documentation is both unnecessary and a meaningful fraction of the overhead. It would also be nice to have for other cloud images.

Contingency Plan

  • Contingency mechanism: ship all images with docs included
  • Contingency deadline: beta change deadline
  • Blocks release? no
  • Blocks product? no

Documentation

The FPC ticket and future guidelines will provide the required documentation.

Release Notes

Packages which are included in the official Fedora Docker Image (NOTE: update with actual images affected) now use a special location for license files, allowing those packages to be shipped with no other documentation. These licenses are found under the /usr/share/licenses hierarchy, rather than /usr/share/docs.

Migration of other packages to this new standard will be on a best-effort basis, so many packages will continue to have license files under /usr/share/docs and not in the new location.

Retrieved from "https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Changes/Use_license_macro_in_RPMs_for_packages_in_Cloud_Image&oldid=391226"