Dave Love <[email protected]> skribis: > [email protected] (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
[...] >> Dave Love <[email protected]> skribis: >> >>> * I should specify a disjunction of licences like "BSD or GPLv2" rather >>> than the conjunction, which seems to be represented as a list (though >>> the doc doesn't say what a list represents). I.e. in Fedora-ish >>> rpm-speak, I have A or B, rather than C and D. Is that possible? >> >> We cannot specify it currently, so what we do is just provide a list of >> license objects as the ‘license’ field and explain the meaning of the >> list in a comment. >> >> Clearly this can be improved, though we have to pay attention of >> overengineering in this domain. > > It seems to me that you need to be able to treat licences similarly to > Fedora and Debian. They're not obviously over-engineered, and the > treatment of licensing must be constrained by legalities, which may or > may not allow simple engineering :-/. Sure, agreed. >> For Python 2 vs. 3, there’s the ‘package-with-python2’ procedure, which >> you can see in (gnu packages python). > > Yes, but that seems to deal with packages just for python modules, Right, it stops at the first non-python-build-system dependency. That said, ‘package-mapping’ allows you to do arbitrary graph rewriting, so that might be what you’re looking for. Ludo’.
