[arch-dev-public] License rebuild: last step

Aaron Griffin aaronmgriffin at gmail.com
Thu May 14 13:53:28 EDT 2009

Because I haven't gotten to it sooner: Eric, you're awesome for doing
this. I send you many eHugs

On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 11:13 PM, Eric Bélanger <snowmaniscool at gmail.com> wrote:
> Just bumping to get more input.  And doing an update/summary at the same time.
> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 1:36 AM, Eric Bélanger <snowmaniscool at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi
>> The license rebuild for core/extra is almost done. Only a few
>> problematic packages remains. I'll post the list here with potential
>> solutions. Read along and comment/discuss as apropriate.
>> codecs:
>> emovix-codecs:
>> - There is no license information in the tarball or on mplayer's site.
>> Other distros use the following licenses:
> Do we keep them? Remove them? More input would be required to get a concenssus.

Let's remove it. It's not a dep of anything anyway.

>> dgen-sdl:
>> FS#12564 and license issue. x86_64 package will probably be removed
>> because of this. I guess I could go ahead and add the license to the
>> i686 package.
> James contacted the code author and got permission to patch it. So the
> x86_64 package will be fixed and the license will be added.

Can we make sure we include the permission blurb in the package license info?

>> mkpxelinux:
>> - Tobias P. custom script. License is unspecified. Tobias: can you
>> give it a license?
> Still needs to be done.

Pinging tpowa - please license this code.

> No objections so far in doing the proposed cleanup:
> To unsupported:
> guile-gtk
> hwd
> lshwd
> unionfs-utils
> user-mode-linux
> xsmbrowser
> To be removed completely (no longer build/work):
> ccaudio
> ksymoops
> randline
> xmame-sdl

Looks ok to me - isn't xmame kind of a big deal, though? Or I am
thinking of xsane?

More information about the arch-dev-public mailing list