Your message dated Thu, 30 Jan 2014 16:03:46 +0000
with message-id
<capq4b8kubtzv7mj517yvzm5vqu7xiyuyje-dxaq8obfdnkh...@mail.gmail.com>
and subject line aptitude: Neither aptitude nor apt-get doesn't show license
information
has caused the Debian Bug report #647807,
regarding Neither aptitude nor apt-get doesn't show license information.
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
647807: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=647807
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: aptitude version: 0.4.11.11
Package: apt version: 0.7.20.2
When you examine not installed package with aptitude or apt-get, package
information doesn't contain package's license.
With 'Section' item you can clarify whether package is contributed or
non-free, but a separated 'License' item would be eligible in terms of
Debian way.
Alix.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Control: severity 647807 wishlist
Hi,
As explained by brian m. carlson in this bug report and by David
Kalnischkies in #647803 after the report was forked by cloning, the
request is not possible to fulfill without a significant amount of
tradeoffs or drawbacks, most importantly:
- currently there is no License field in packages, so this would be a
departure from the current practice in aptitude, as far as I know,
about only using fields which are present in the packages in one way
or another
- per the previous point, somebody would be doing the summary of this
pseudo-field by hand, and would have to keep an eye in every update or
otherwise risk being out of date
- there could be a semi-automatic/intelligent parsing of
debian/copyright, especially now that there's a convergence towards
"copyright format 1.0". but many many packages contain at least two
difference licenses for code and doc, and many large projects come
with a variety of licenses (no less than 5 in several of my packages),
so the resulting hypothetical License field would not be as useful as
most people would like, I think.
So I don't think that this can easily be implemented, nor that should
be implemented in aptitude unless there are established fields for
this coming from the packages or FTP masters, or something like that.
There is the option to implement someting achieving similar
functionality (without the summary) and fetch and show the copyright
file, but that request is already present at least in in #492432, so
we do not need to have more than one bug report open.
Closing the bug now, please reopen if you have any concerns or more
information more information about this topic.
Cheers.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <[email protected]>
--- End Message ---
_______________________________________________
Aptitude-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aptitude-devel
