On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 01:31:53PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> writes: > > Hilmar Preusse <hille42@web.de> writes: > > >> In the moment we have the situation that we are requested to add the > >> license to all TL packages, instead of just adding it to one and put > >> only referers into the others (#473216). This gives us 1.8 MB of > >> license files, which could be saved of the LPPL would be in base-files. > > > More relevantly than the total size, IMO (1.8MB isn't really very much) > > is that according to popcon, one-seventh of our systems have at least > > texlive-base installed. If every texlive-base installation would > > benefit from having LPPL in common-licenses and most installations > > involve more than one package with the LPPL, that looks like a fairly > > reasonable case for common-licenses to me. What is also relevant, IMO, is the type of packages that use it. The way I use tex, I only have it installed on systems which have enough disk space. For those systems, I don't have a problem with 1.8 MB of license files. However, systems where I don't install texlive are usually quite short on disk space (otherwise I would have installed it). For those systems, having many extra licenses needlessly installed in common-licenses may actually do serious harm. This is assuming that not-so-extremely-much-used licenses are placed in there, and common-licenses will take up significant space itself. > Now, I did look for that particular version, and it's possible that the > numbers will go up if I do a broader search. Do you think that's likely? > Are there a lot of packages under 1.3a (which this bug originally > referenced) or other versions of this license? Doing a broad search makes no sense: if you get more hits, you'll need to include more licenses as well. You can only point to common-licenses if the license is exactly the one your package is using, not if it's a different version. Thanks, Bas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature