On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 5:51 PM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Eric Bélanger <snowmaniscool@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
Added Perl Artistic 2.0 (https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/21167), dropped RALINK as it isn't in use anymore.
-Dan
Is there any reason why the Perl Artistic 2.0 license is installed in a Artistic2.0 directory? Wouldn't it be more logical to have it in a PerlArtistic2.0 directory as we already have a PerlArtistic directory containing version 1 of the license?
In case this is just nit picking, then consider this my signoff (on x86_64).
Because 1) no one calls it "The Perl Artistic License"; it is just "The Artistic License", look at the top of the file 2) Every package using it already in some form just calls it Artistic or Artistic 2.0 or something
-Dan
OK, makes sense. You can move it to core unless you want another signoff.