[aur-general] Custom licence directory ?

[Simon Hollingshead]

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 at gmail.com