[pacman-dev] Release Schedule for 3.0

[Douglas Soares de Andrade]

Em Quarta 07 Fevereiro 2007, Roman Kyrylych escreveu:
> 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.

Yes, i was talking about makepkg.

> 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).