-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA224 On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:09:27 +0100 Andrea Scarpino <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Thorsten, > you don't need to include LICENSE file for packages that use GPL or > common licenses (e.g. cococp), and you can omit 'custom:' when a > package is licensed under BSD or MIT. > Why do you use package() function when the package isn't a splitted > package? Also, you don't need to put Contributor/Maintainer tag twice > (e.g. objfw-hg) and you can omit empty arrays from PKGBUILD (e.g. > newsbeuter-git). > Ah, another little thing: don't include $pkgname in description (e.g. > structorizer). > > Regards >
Hello Andrea, when I packaged cococpp I stumbled upon this paragraph in the text: > As an exception, it is allowed to write an extension of Coco/R that is > used as a plugin in non-free software. which I had not read in another GPL license file I read so far, so I decided to include it to the package in order to avoid any legal problems. As namcap always throwed a unnecessary warning if only the Maintainer tag was set, I decided to simply set both because I thought it wouldn't disturb anyone and I had a warning less when I was proving my packages. As Stefan already said, he told me to set a custom in front of the license I will change that when it is clarified how it should be. I'll upload a new structorizer package with a fixed description in the next few minutes. For the usage of both methods(build and package), I thought it's much nicer to read for people who are new to Arch and read their first PKGBUILDs and as the packages didn't need fakeroot to build I used it. Regards - -- Jabber: [email protected] Blog: http://atsutane.freethoughts.de/ Key: 295AFBF4 FP: 39F8 80E5 0E49 A4D1 1341 E8F9 39E4 F17F 295A FBF4 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iFUEARELAAYFAksIKKUACgkQOeTxfyla+/SfOgDYh+41Vi97OFPPTO5VnxtVvpyl A9psMOmq66wUAN4+2Aew9cW0c1foq6eWcbWo6BaJCrLtBrEcuUXi =JkFe -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
