On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 02:22:39PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > OK, following the inclusion of the guidelines in the newsletter I have added > them to the Arch Packaging standards page - I have still left a cautionary > note as it is still not totally clear how this is going to work in practice.
How is it not totally clear how it will work in practice? Is that just
related to your personal confusion? I thought I was fairly clear on
exactly how it will work in practice...
Where is a link to your Arch Packaging standards page? I looked for like
10 minutes.
> I am personally confused about a few things:
>
> a) are ALL pkgs without a "common" license supposed to contain an actual
> license file that is installed to /usr/share/licenses/$pkgname ?
Yes.
> b) the BSD license issue - it should be set to license="BSD" but the actual
> license file should be included, with the copyright line, in the pkg? But
> where: /usr/share/licenses/common/BSD/$pkgname ?
Custom licenses go in /usr/share/licenses/<pkgname>. That's where the BSD
license file goes.
> c) "Multiple entries in the license array are OR'd together as the majority
> of them apply in different cases, as opposed to applying at the same time."
> - eh? Can we have that in layman's terms, please?
If you see license=("GPL" "custom:some commercial license") it means that
the package is dual licensed. When pacman gets the ability to filter on
licenses (so you can say, "I only want GPL and BSD licensed software"), it
will treat the above licenses as GPL licensed software, regardless of the
other licenses listed.
Does that make any more sense?
Jason
--
If you understand, things are just as they are. If you do not understand,
things are just as they are.
pgpEo071T6Zwq.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
