2007/2/7, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com>:
On 2/7/07, Roman Kyrylych <roman.kyrylych@gmail.com> wrote:
2007/2/7, Douglas Soares de Andrade <dsandrade@gmail.com>:
There is another issue i want to discuss. The License field shoud not be required ? Today it is just a warning and i guess we should make it required, so we can keep track of what is opensource, what is proprietary and so on. People usually will tend to just ignore the warning and situation will be as it is today.
What do you guys think ?
I agree. It must be required.
I think it should be required EVENTUALLY, but for right now, so we don't break 95% of the official packages and AUR packages, we leave it as a warning and move it as "required" later on (3.1 release?)
Well, it could not be required by pacman and gensync, but must be required by makepkg, I think. So if user makes or upgrades a package, he/she must fill license field. If user want's just to upgrade or rebuild official package using ABS then he/she must update PKGBUILD to use proper license field (if user doesn't want to bother with this - it can be worked around as license="unknown" - for the laziest users). -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)