I believe that, instead of making a large campaign "do not use the licence field", we should work towards deciding finally, what the field should contain. A licence URL? Or simply a string description? Or an acronym? Who will make the decision, popular vote? Developers?
Another question I had was related to the AUR. I've been seeing some really badly created packages lately: - Lacking MD5 sums, - .tar.gz that contains only the PKGBUILD (without the directory), this becomes a hassle when you are trying to build a lot of packages as dependancies for something. - and the worst case: broken packages. I've noticed that some packagers don't realize the point of installing into $startdir/pkg and their build() ends up installing all over the place. This is of course because some people don't use fakeroot. The questions I had were: - Would it be possible to make some sort of chroot-ed testbed for PKGBUILDs once they are submitted? Or at least some check for all the required fields in the PKGBUILD? - Would it be possible to have sort of warning prior to uploading any package that would point out to submitters to test their package in fakeroot, fill in the MD5 sums, put proper sourceforge URLs, etc? I hope I'm not hijacking the discussion :). In a sense, this is somewhat related to our objective of having perfect PKGBUILDs in the AUR. Best regards, Maksim Sipos _______________________________________________ arch mailing list arch@archlinux.org http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
