[aur-general] Source code for community packages.

[Xyne]

On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 01:44:58 -0400
Eric Bélanger <snowmaniscool at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 9:15 PM, Eric Bélanger<snowmaniscool at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 8:34 PM, Xyne<xyne at archlinux.ca> wrote:
> >> A small public repo of compiled AUR packages reminded me of something.
> >>
> >> What's the official policy for providing source code for GPL'd binary
> >> packages in [community]? I know there was a long discussion about this
> >> with some phraknagging eventually leading to a source "repository" for
> >> core and maybe extra. Although it would most likely never happen it is
> >> possible for someone to show up after nearly 3 years and request a
> >> previous package's source code.
> >>
> >> I suppose that previously the devs could argue that [community] was "not
> >> official" and relegate all obligations to the packagers (although only
> >> tentatively). Now that [community] is integrated more tightly with
> >> [core] and [extra] it seems that this is something at least worth a
> >> discussion.
> >
> > We will definitely create sourceballs for (L)GPL2 community packages.
> > We were waiting for the svn switch for the community repo because the
> > sourceball script is using svn to get package information.  The
> > community repo support was added in the dbscripts git. We just need to
> > update the dbscripts on the server. Meanwhile, TU should check that
> > their package have the license specified.
> 
> I forgot some useful links.
> 
> Current community packages with missing licenses :
> http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/User:Snowman/License_Rebuild_TODO
> 
> As some of this stuff haven't been rebuilt in a while, other things
> that might need to be fixed:
> http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/User:Snowman/License_Rebuild_Checklist


Thanks for the reply.