On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 06:46:52PM +0100, Philip Dillon-Thiselton wrote: > Jason Chu wrote: > > >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... > > > Sorry, I meant no disrespect!!! I'm not feeling very articulate today. I > really meant how it > will actually proceed; it's bound to have a few teething problems and there > is the faint > possibility of some sort of unforseen consequence - what I am really trying > to say is > > "Over enthusiastic PKGBUILDers wait to see exactly how the dev team implement > it before you give > it a half-arsed go" > > Maybe i should just have said that?
Yeah, that probably would have been better ;) > >Where is a link to your Arch Packaging standards page? I looked for like > >10 minutes. > > > Um - it's in the thread called Arch Package Standards in the tur list: > > http://metis.cactuswax.net/wiki_test/index.php?title=Arch_Packaging_Standards I was looking for a link to cactus' mediawiki and couldn't find that. > >>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. > > > So that means that there will be no licenses/common/BSD at all and that BSD > will not be in the > license pkg. I think I just assumed sub-conciously that GPL and BSD were > both very common > licenses so BSD would be a common license - but I assume it never will be if > they are all unique > due to the copyright line, correct? That's right on all counts. Every BSD copyright file is different. > >>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? > > > With you having explicitly said that pacman will have that ability, aye, it > makes more sense. It > also explains why BSD is described as a common license in the license field > but treated as custom > license in the filesystem :) > > Are you going to write an expanded doc or would you like me to put one > together from my "layman" > perspective on cactus's wiki? You might as well fill it out on cactus' wiki. I assume it'll go into whatever eventually becomes the official packaging documentation ;) Jason -- If you understand, things are just as they are. If you do not understand, things are just as they are.
pgpVK7OMm5M3G.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
