[arch-dev-public] License cleanup

[Dan McGee]

On 8/20/07, Travis Willard <travis at archlinux.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 16:15:47 -0400
> "Dan McGee" <dpmcgee at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 8/3/07, Andrew Fyfe <andrew at neptune-one.net> wrote:
> > > Travis Willard wrote:
> > > > Hey guys,
> > > >
> > > > You may have noticed I added license information to a handful
> > > > (~27ish) packages in [extra] - this email is just to keep you
> > > > informed as to what I'm doing.
> > > >
> > > > Right now, I'm just adding license fields where I can.  For many
> > > > of them, I'm simply searching Gentoo's package search and adding
> > > > the licenses that come up there.  If the package in question
> > > > isn't in Gentoo's tree, I've been looking at the website and
> > > > downloading sources.  For custom licenses, I'm even adding the
> > > > command at the end of the build() function to install the license
> > > > to the proper directory.
> > > >
> > > > What I'm NOT doing:
> > > > . Rebuilding any of these packages - I doubt users would
> > > > appreciate needing to redownload their whole systems to get
> > > > updated license information only.
> > > > . Updating any of these packages to newest version - I've already
> > > > come across a couple that are definitively out of date, one whose
> > > > sources I couldn't even download to add the proper
> > > > license-installation instruction into the build() method.  I'm
> > > > not updating these - the point of what I'm doing is to add
> > > > licenses, not make our entire repo uptodate.  Maybe that'll come
> > > > later. ;)
> > > >
> > > > In any case, I think I'm done for tonight; I'm feeling pretty
> > > > tired.  If anyone wants to join me in this crusade, check out my
> > > > thread entitled "Useful Scripts", grab the script that checks for
> > > > bad licenses, and give it a run in your cvs dir for extra or
> > > > unstable or community (making sure to run cvs update first!) -
> > > > that'll give you a niiiice long list of packages that need
> > > > tending to.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Travis
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > arch-dev-public mailing list
> > > > arch-dev-public at archlinux.org
> > > > http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-dev-public
> > >
> > > Attached is a patch for each repo, they mainly contain
> > > - typo fixes
> > > - Artistic => PerlArtistic
> > > - zlib => custom:zlib
> > > - license="..." => license=(...) (aesthetic, but the license field
> > > should be a bash array)
> > >
> > > The patches can be applied with `patch -Np1` (-Np2 for
> > > repo-current.patch) from /var/abs.
> > >
> > > Andrew
> >
> > Did anyone act on this? Doesn't seem like there is reason not to patch
> > in some licenses stuff.
> >
> > If no one speaks up I guess it gets assigned to me.
> >
> > -Dan
>
> Damnit, I meant to comment on this but I forgot.  :(
>
> The problem with a patch against the whole repo based on what abs pulls
> down is that abs only grabs stuff that's tagged CURRENT, while there
> may be updates to packages that haven't been rebuilt yet; for example,
> any of the license-addition I've done isn't tagged CURRENT yet 'cause I
> didn't do any rebuilds.  I'm not sure how cleanly the patch would apply.
>
> Anywho, I plan to do some more work on the license front shortly.

Patch should fail on a file-by-file basis, so it shouldn't be all that
bad of a result. And just make sure you check the diff before you
commit.

-Dan