Related issue: Many metapackages are marked "as-is". If they install no files at all, then they should technically have the empty string as LICENSE. Which is forbidden by repoman.
Alternatively, we could introduce an own "metapackage" license label for these packages (suggested by Matija Šuklje to [email protected]) and add it to the appropriate license groups. Text would be as follows: ╓────[ licenses/metapackage ] ║ This is a metapackage that (itself) installs no files, therefore no ║ license is needed. ║ ║ This does not in any way imply under which licenses the packages in it ║ are distributed. Check the metapackage's dependencies for their actual ║ license terms. ╙──── If you don't object, I would commit this and also update the license info of any metapackage I come across. Ulrich
