On 9/28/07, Jason Chu firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 12:00:27PM +0300, Roman Kyrylych wrote:
2007/9/28, Aaron Griffin email@example.com:
On 9/27/07, Dan McGee firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
On 9/27/07, Andreas Radke email@example.com wrote:
Am Thu, 27 Sep 2007 18:33:09 -0500 schrieb "Aaron Griffin" firstname.lastname@example.org:
Opinions, what do you guys think? I haven't really heard much comment on this topic so far.
-1 from me
Whoever will maintain such a script it will be very hard to satisfy all license issue. I prefer to solve the license issue first. Either let's move license critical packages into a certain non-free repo or mark them in their pkgbuild with some kind of a tag. I'd like to have the non-free repo solution.
I'm so confused here! The _script_ should not care at ALL about license issues, that is why the script will take a package list! It is up to the person generating the ISO or package bundle to ensure they are in compliance with any license issues, not the script.
Yeah Dan got what I was intending.
What I mean is a script that just uses a file that lists packages to build us a nice big fat ISO. I really doubt it'd be much more than a pacman --root=foo/, repo-add, and mkisofs.
This way, through human interaction, we can specifically manage any and all license issues.
I don't mind about such script, of course. But since we're going to provide our own official OMGHUGE ISO - that would be we who will need to check those packages for license then. ;-) Since license support in pacman is not on the top of current priorities now and IMHO non-free repo is simpler aproach to solving such issues - I agree with Andy here.
I really don't think pacman needs to have license support. When we create the ISO we will have a list of packages we want to build the ISO repo from. That list of packages won't include any packages that we aren't allowed to distribute. Tada.
Yeah, see. Jason (and Dan, earlier) has the right of it here. I think this is (again) blown out of proportion. We all know there are license issues with some packages. That's the way this works.
So how do we solve this? We *explicitly* list packages that should be installed. It's no different if someone creates a "nonfree" repo (which we don't want to do) - they are still listing packages they are allowing.
The simplest way to "list packages" like this? A text file. We don't need web interfaces. We don't need java tools. We don't need this crap.
We need a text file.
This isn't rocket surgery here. We're not trying to solve complex license issues. We're trying to make a list of packages we want to distribute.