[arch-dev-public] save some kb - ln ;)
kde stores some licences under /opt/kde/share/apps/LICENSES/ and as we have this same licences already in arch (/usr/share/licenses/), what about replacing them in the kde pkg with links to the ones in our system? - D -- .·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´ ° ° ° ° ° ° ><((((º> ° ° ° ° ° <º)))>< <º)))><
Monday 24 September 2007, Damir Perisa wrote: | kde stores some licences under | /opt/kde/share/apps/LICENSES/ | | and as we have this same licences already in arch | (/usr/share/licenses/), what about replacing them in the kde pkg | with links to the ones in our system? | | - D i've just found some more - part of the extra/science/r pkg /usr/lib/R/share/licenses /usr/lib/R/share/licenses/LGPL-2.1 /usr/lib/R/share/licenses/Artistic /usr/lib/R/share/licenses/GPL-2 /usr/lib/R/share/licenses/BSD /usr/lib/R/share/licenses/LGPL-2 should i replace them by symlinks? - D -- .·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´ ° ° ° ° ° ° ><((((º> ° ° ° ° ° <º)))>< <º)))><
On 9/23/07, Damir Perisa <damir.perisa@solnet.ch> wrote:
Monday 24 September 2007, Damir Perisa wrote: | kde stores some licences under | /opt/kde/share/apps/LICENSES/ | | and as we have this same licences already in arch | (/usr/share/licenses/), what about replacing them in the kde pkg | with links to the ones in our system? | | - D
i've just found some more - part of the extra/science/r pkg
/usr/lib/R/share/licenses /usr/lib/R/share/licenses/LGPL-2.1 /usr/lib/R/share/licenses/Artistic /usr/lib/R/share/licenses/GPL-2 /usr/lib/R/share/licenses/BSD /usr/lib/R/share/licenses/LGPL-2
should i replace them by symlinks?
If you want. To me, and anyone else with disk space of more than, say, 5 gigs, it's not a huge deal. BUT if you think it's ideal in your packages, I don't see a problem with it... just make sure to comment it in the PKGBUILD.
Monday 24 September 2007, Aaron Griffin wrote: | If you want. To me, and anyone else with disk space of more than, | say, 5 gigs, it's not a huge deal. BUT if you think it's ideal in | your packages, I don't see a problem with it... its redundancy we can do without, that's why i suggest this. small double files with the same content also defragment the space unnecessarily (they are written down every time a pkg is updated). and of course they are the possibility to save space (not much - around 50kb). | just make sure to comment it in the PKGBUILD. sure - D -- .·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´ ° ° ° ° ° ° ><((((º> ° ° ° ° ° <º)))>< <º)))><
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: arch-dev-public-bounces@archlinux.org [mailto:arch-dev-public- bounces@archlinux.org] Namens Damir Perisa Verzonden: maandag 24 september 2007 0:23 Aan: Public mailing list for ArchLinux development Onderwerp: Re: [arch-dev-public] save some kb - ln ;)
i've just found some more - part of the extra/science/r pkg
/usr/lib/R/share/licenses /usr/lib/R/share/licenses/LGPL-2.1 /usr/lib/R/share/licenses/Artistic /usr/lib/R/share/licenses/GPL-2 /usr/lib/R/share/licenses/BSD /usr/lib/R/share/licenses/LGPL-2
should i replace them by symlinks?
Are these links required? The location of these things are just weird, there's no reason to have the datadir inside the libexecdir, there's not a single piece of common software that does this. Logical would be to have the datadir pointing to /usr/share, where the licenses would appear in /usr/share/licenses, in which case they're not needed anymore because they're already there.
On 9/24/07, Jan de Groot <jan@jgc.homeip.net> wrote:
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: arch-dev-public-bounces@archlinux.org [mailto:arch-dev-public- bounces@archlinux.org] Namens Damir Perisa Verzonden: maandag 24 september 2007 0:23 Aan: Public mailing list for ArchLinux development Onderwerp: Re: [arch-dev-public] save some kb - ln ;)
i've just found some more - part of the extra/science/r pkg
/usr/lib/R/share/licenses /usr/lib/R/share/licenses/LGPL-2.1 /usr/lib/R/share/licenses/Artistic /usr/lib/R/share/licenses/GPL-2 /usr/lib/R/share/licenses/BSD /usr/lib/R/share/licenses/LGPL-2
should i replace them by symlinks?
Are these links required? The location of these things are just weird, there's no reason to have the datadir inside the libexecdir, there's not a single piece of common software that does this. Logical would be to have the datadir pointing to /usr/share, where the licenses would appear in /usr/share/licenses, in which case they're not needed anymore because they're already there.
Jan again wins this one. This is a really good point, I didn't even notice that these are in /usr/lib/R/ I agree here. We should switch the datadir to /usr/share and remove common licenses from the package instead of the symlink. Thanks Jan for putting us in our place 8)
Logical would be to have the datadir pointing to /usr/share, where
On 9/24/07, Jan de Groot <jan@jgc.homeip.net> wrote: the licenses would appear
in /usr/share/licenses, in which case they're not needed anymore because they're already there.
I for some reason was thinking similiarly "Why do we need the symlinks".. but I didn't put together that creating the /usr/lib/R/share directory all together was wrong. +1 Jan. -- . : [ + carpe diem totus tuus + ] : .
Monday 24 September 2007, Jan de Groot wrote: | > i've just found some more - part of the extra/science/r pkg | > | > /usr/lib/R/share/licenses | > /usr/lib/R/share/licenses/LGPL-2.1 | > /usr/lib/R/share/licenses/Artistic | > /usr/lib/R/share/licenses/GPL-2 | > /usr/lib/R/share/licenses/BSD | > /usr/lib/R/share/licenses/LGPL-2 | > | > should i replace them by symlinks? | | Are these links required? The location of these things are just | weird, there's no reason to have the datadir inside the | libexecdir, there's not a single piece of common software that | does this. Logical would be to have the datadir pointing to | /usr/share, where the licenses would appear in | /usr/share/licenses, in which case they're not needed anymore | because they're already there. R has its CRAN (like perl's CPAN) that is kind of a package manager itself. you can directly in R install pkgs for it through the interface, however i maintain (not publicly, only for me and some colleagues) R addon packages. i have to clean-up R anyway... it has weird places to put things and in addition i need to enable support for blas and lapack, that are now pkgs in [extra]. a new release is on the way and i will then also cleanup the paths. the links or letting the programm know where the licences are, are needed in case the programme itself tries to access licences. e.g. KDE apps have this Help:About_ProgrammeXY:License_Agreement in every app, that shows a GPL2 licence... this would break i think, if you remove it from kde without linking it. - D -- .·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´ ° ° ° ° ° ° ><((((º> ° ° ° ° ° <º)))>< <º)))><
participants (4)
-
Aaron Griffin
-
Damir Perisa
-
Jan de Groot
-
Jeff Mickey