Jason Chu wrote:
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 ;)
Eh, fingers crossed. It needs quite a bit of peer review before it
should even be considered by higher powers.
Jason
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
arch mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
_______________________________________________
arch mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
