[pacman-dev] Release Schedule for 3.0

Roman Kyrylych roman.kyrylych at gmail.com
Wed Feb 7 11:54:14 EST 2007

2007/2/7, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin at gmail.com>:
> On 2/7/07, Roman Kyrylych <roman.kyrylych at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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).
> But this, however, is the problem.  All of the sudden, users can't
> build packages from ABS or with aurbuild because of the missing field.
>  Not everyone will know what to do.  "Add the license field? What does
> that mean" etc etc.  The arch=() tag is a safeguard, and easy to add
> for i686 (I think the TUs know about this by now, I stickied a post
> about it).  The problem is that the license field is more difficult to
> add across the board.
> This is why I suggest an interim period (3.0 to 3.1) where it is not
> required, but warned severely (we can switch 'warning' to 'error' to
> indicate as such), but we should still allow those packages to be
> built for now.

OK, there's no problem in not requiring license field until 3.1.

But my thought is that when user uses aurbuild then he/she built it
once, then he/she knows how to build packages!, so it won't be hard
for him/her to add license field and notify package maintainer about
this (and bug mantainer until he fixes his package), so user won't
have to do this next time when autoupdating packages with
aurbuild/qpkg/yaourt/whatever. :-P
But I agree that we live in non-ideal world. :-)

Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)

More information about the pacman-dev mailing list