[aur-general] Custom licence directory ?
Hi, I have a question about custom licences. - my package is named gnuplot-nox (that is, gnuplot with far less dependencies) - the wiki ( https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Packaging_Standards#Licenses) states that I should place the custom licence in /usr/share/licence/$pkgname/. I think the licence should go to /usr/share/licence/gnuplot/ and not to /usr/share/licence/gnuplot-nox/. But if I do that namcap complains that there is no custom licence directory : gnuplot-nox E: Missing custom license directory (usr/share/licenses/gnuplot-nox) what are your opinions about this issue ? Regards. -- Jonathan Gibert Consultant www.iconsultants.fr
Em 18/11/2013 09:08, JoKoT3 escreveu:
Hi,
I have a question about custom licences. - my package is named gnuplot-nox (that is, gnuplot with far less dependencies) - the wiki ( https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Packaging_Standards#Licenses) states that I should place the custom licence in /usr/share/licence/$pkgname/.
I think the licence should go to /usr/share/licence/gnuplot/ and not to /usr/share/licence/gnuplot-nox/. But if I do that namcap complains that there is no custom licence directory : gnuplot-nox
E: Missing custom license directory (usr/share/licenses/gnuplot-nox)
what are your opinions about this issue ?
Regards.
In english, the correct is "license", and not licence. So you can see you've got a typo in your filepath. Also, please note it is "licenses/" (in plural), and not in singular. Cheers, Rafael Ferreira
well spotted misspelling, but his question was to put license file into /usr/share/licenses/gnuplot{,-nox}. i suppose you could try adding a symlink from gnuplot-nox to gnuplot, so namcap complains no more. quite some other packages do that as well. georg
Em 18/11/2013 09:27, G. Schlisio escreveu:
well spotted misspelling, but his question was to put license file into /usr/share/licenses/gnuplot{,-nox}. i suppose you could try adding a symlink from gnuplot-nox to gnuplot, so namcap complains no more. quite some other packages do that as well. georg
Well, Arch packaging standard says /usr/share/licenses/$pkgname is the correct license folder. And namcap respects that while verifying his package. Case it is not desire of the maintainer to use this standard (without typos and in $pkgname dirname), arch system won't break... but he will not be following correctly the aforementioned standard. ps.: Doing a symlink won't vanish namcap's warning because symlink != directory. Anyway, it is just a warning.
Thanks, the typo is just in my mail, the PKGBUILD is correct (OT: according to wikipedia, "license" is used in american english but "licence" is used in all other english speaking countries. In french the word is also "licence"... my brain hurts). I agree that it is more a philosophical question than a technical one, but it seems logical to me to reflect that the licence applies to the software "gnuplot" and not to the package "gnuplot-nox". regarding your ps, doing the symlink the other way around should get namcap happy (?). @g.schilisio : do you have a PKGBUILD in mind that does a symlink ? I'm looking for the "right" way to do it. On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Rafael Ferreira <josephgbr@archlinux.info>wrote:
Em 18/11/2013 09:27, G. Schlisio escreveu:
well spotted misspelling, but his question was to put license file
into /usr/share/licenses/gnuplot{,-nox}. i suppose you could try adding a symlink from gnuplot-nox to gnuplot, so namcap complains no more. quite some other packages do that as well. georg
Well, Arch packaging standard says /usr/share/licenses/$pkgname is the correct license folder. And namcap respects that while verifying his package. Case it is not desire of the maintainer to use this standard (without typos and in $pkgname dirname), arch system won't break... but he will not be following correctly the aforementioned standard.
ps.: Doing a symlink won't vanish namcap's warning because symlink != directory. Anyway, it is just a warning.
-- Jonathan Gibert Consultant www.iconsultants.fr
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 12:23 PM, JoKoT3 <jokot3@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks,
the typo is just in my mail, the PKGBUILD is correct (OT: according to wikipedia, "license" is used in american english but "licence" is used in all other english speaking countries. In french the word is also "licence"... my brain hurts).
I agree that it is more a philosophical question than a technical one, but it seems logical to me to reflect that the licence applies to the software "gnuplot" and not to the package "gnuplot-nox".
regarding your ps, doing the symlink the other way around should get namcap happy (?). @g.schilisio : do you have a PKGBUILD in mind that does a symlink ? I'm looking for the "right" way to do it.
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Rafael Ferreira <josephgbr@archlinux.info>wrote:
Em 18/11/2013 09:27, G. Schlisio escreveu:
well spotted misspelling, but his question was to put license file
into /usr/share/licenses/gnuplot{,-nox}. i suppose you could try adding a symlink from gnuplot-nox to gnuplot, so namcap complains no more. quite some other packages do that as well. georg
Well, Arch packaging standard says /usr/share/licenses/$pkgname is the correct license folder. And namcap respects that while verifying his package. Case it is not desire of the maintainer to use this standard (without typos and in $pkgname dirname), arch system won't break... but he will not be following correctly the aforementioned standard.
ps.: Doing a symlink won't vanish namcap's warning because symlink != directory. Anyway, it is just a warning.
-- Jonathan Gibert Consultant www.iconsultants.fr
I'm also interested in the correct fix. This is a problem that affects every -git package. J. Leclanche
do you have a PKGBUILD in mind that does a symlink ? I'm looking for the "right" way to do it.
please refrain from top posting, as there is a bottom post policy here. first package i encountered is extra/nvidia-utils [0] (PKGBUILD can be retrieved via abs [1]) there you find install -D -m644 LICENSE "${pkgdir}/usr/share/licenses/nvidia/LICENSE" ln -s nvidia "${pkgdir}/usr/share/licenses/nvidia-utils" the same is done for a lot of lib32-packages in multilib. even if you still get a warning from namcap, this looks like a nice, clean and commonly accepted solution to me. georg [0] https://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/x86_64/nvidia-utils/ [1] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Abs
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 12:57 PM, G. Schlisio <g.schlisio@dukun.de> wrote:
do you have a PKGBUILD in mind that does a symlink ? I'm looking for the "right" way to do it.
please refrain from top posting, as there is a bottom post policy here.
first package i encountered is extra/nvidia-utils [0] (PKGBUILD can be retrieved via abs [1]) there you find
install -D -m644 LICENSE "${pkgdir}/usr/share/licenses/nvidia/LICENSE" ln -s nvidia "${pkgdir}/usr/share/licenses/nvidia-utils"
the same is done for a lot of lib32-packages in multilib. even if you still get a warning from namcap, this looks like a nice, clean and commonly accepted solution to me. georg
[0] https://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/x86_64/nvidia-utils/ [1] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Abs
In that case, maybe it should be taken into account by namcap. And added to the packaging guidelines. :)
the same is done for a lot of lib32-packages in multilib. even if you still get a warning from namcap, this looks like a nice, clean and commonly accepted solution to me.
Both solutions look nice, clean and are commonly accepted. The important question is what the purpose behind /usr/share/licenses/$pkgname was. If the purpose was to know the license of a specific package, then it just wins. -- Kind regards, Damian Nowak StratusHost www.AtlasHost.eu
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 $pkgname part is to ensure no two packages that can be mutually installed could ever have a filesystem conflict on the license file (ensuring uniqueness by the fact no two packages/AUR PKGBUILDs can have the same name). In cases where you're both providing AND conflicting the non-git version, however, this point seems not to matter. -- Simon Hollingshead simon.hollingshead@gmail.com
first package i encountered is extra/nvidia-utils [0] (PKGBUILD can be retrieved via abs [1]) there you find
install -D -m644 LICENSE "${pkgdir}/usr/share/licenses/nvidia/LICENSE" ln -s nvidia "${pkgdir}/usr/share/licenses/nvidia-utils"
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.
Ick. I'm surprised this is a common practice. It seems insane for one package to mess with a second package's files. Anyway, even similar packages may have distinct licenses. For example, JoKoT3 mentions that gnuplot-nox does not include the same set of dependencies as gnuplot. In theory, this means that the two packages could require different licenses.
participants (7)
-
G. Schlisio
-
Jeremy Audet
-
Jerome Leclanche
-
JoKoT3
-
Nowaker
-
Rafael Ferreira
-
Simon Hollingshead