So, the license maintains the name it has in the source tarball (if it
exists)? That seems easy enough. How about in cases where there is no
license file in the source tarball and it is only on a webpage or something?
Phil
Jason Chu wrote:
On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 02:10:38PM +0100, Philip Dillon-Thiselton wrote:
I have updated the doc on the new wiki as a said I would but I need some more
clarification.
Where the doc say "include license file(s) in /usr/share/licenses/<pkgname>" I assumed this meant inside
a dir called pkgname - but that might be incorrect? What should be called pkgname: the license file
itself or the dir the license file goes in? It must be the latter if there are going to be cases with
more than one license but then what should the license files be called?
Also the doc is currently in html format - would it be better to completely wiki-fy it then have Dusty
convert it later for the sake of readability in the short term?
http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Packaging_Standards
The license is a file inside a directory named <pkgname>. If we were to
use the GPL as an example, it'd be something like,
/usr/share/licenses/glibc/COPYING.
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
