https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Pkgbuild#license> mesa-git and other -git packages built from same source
*should* replace packages from [extra] as they provide *everything* packages from [extra] do (*exactly* the same files/directories/etc)
The licenses installed in `/usr/share/licenses/*` are never referenced by applications. They are not application data, and an appication should never reference those files. Those licenses are used only by the packaging system. To state the same point a little differently, the files in `/lib/mesa/*` belong to the mesa _application_, but the files in /usr/share/licenses/mesa belong to the mesa _package_. (assuming /lib/mesa/* exists -- I don't know about the app) As a result, a -git package *should* differ from a non-git package regarding license files. I'm not completely off my rocker here. See, for example, the clyde-git package. [1] It is the second most popular package in the AUR, by votes, and it installs license files in /usr/share/licenses/clyde-git. Also, the arch wiki clearly repeats my point: "license file(s) should be included in: /usr/share/licenses/pkgname/." [2] [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/cl/clyde-git/PKGBUILD [2] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Pkgbuild#license