[pacman-dev] Release Schedule for 3.0

[Roman Kyrylych]

2007/2/7, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin at gmail.com>:
> On 2/7/07, Roman Kyrylych <roman.kyrylych at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 2007/2/7, Douglas Soares de Andrade <dsandrade at 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)