On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 9:15 PM, Eric Bélanger<[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 8:34 PM, Xyne<[email protected]> wrote: >> A small public repo of compiled AUR packages reminded me of something. >> >> What's the official policy for providing source code for GPL'd binary >> packages in [community]? I know there was a long discussion about this >> with some phraknagging eventually leading to a source "repository" for >> core and maybe extra. Although it would most likely never happen it is >> possible for someone to show up after nearly 3 years and request a >> previous package's source code. >> >> I suppose that previously the devs could argue that [community] was "not >> official" and relegate all obligations to the packagers (although only >> tentatively). Now that [community] is integrated more tightly with >> [core] and [extra] it seems that this is something at least worth a >> discussion. > > We will definitely create sourceballs for (L)GPL2 community packages. > We were waiting for the svn switch for the community repo because the > sourceball script is using svn to get package information. The > community repo support was added in the dbscripts git. We just need to > update the dbscripts on the server. Meanwhile, TU should check that > their package have the license specified.
I forgot some useful links. Current community packages with missing licenses : http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/User:Snowman/License_Rebuild_TODO As some of this stuff haven't been rebuilt in a while, other things that might need to be fixed: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/User:Snowman/License_Rebuild_Checklist
