On 18/11/13 16:02, Nowaker wrote:
the same is done for a lot of lib32-packages in multilib. even if you still get a warning from namcap, this looks like a nice, clean and commonly accepted solution to me.
Both solutions look nice, clean and are commonly accepted. The important question is what the purpose behind /usr/share/licenses/$pkgname was. If the purpose was to know the license of a specific package, then it just wins.
I would assume another reason for the $pkgname part is to ensure no two packages that can be mutually installed could ever have a filesystem conflict on the license file (ensuring uniqueness by the fact no two packages/AUR PKGBUILDs can have the same name). In cases where you're both providing AND conflicting the non-git version, however, this point seems not to matter. -- Simon Hollingshead simon.hollingshead@gmail.com