On 18/11/13 16:02, Nowaker wrote: >> the same is done for a lot of lib32-packages in multilib. >> even if you still get a warning from namcap, this looks like a nice, >> clean and commonly accepted solution to me. > > Both solutions look nice, clean and are commonly accepted. The > important question is what the purpose behind > /usr/share/licenses/$pkgname was. If the purpose was to know the > license of a specific package, then it just wins. > I would assume another reason for the $pkgname part is to ensure no two packages that can be mutually installed could ever have a filesystem conflict on the license file (ensuring uniqueness by the fact no two packages/AUR PKGBUILDs can have the same name). In cases where you're both providing AND conflicting the non-git version, however, this point seems not to matter.
-- Simon Hollingshead [email protected]
