You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
Offline
woot
Now I have to update all my PKGBUILDs in AUR (when it's actually released) with a license field, at least I don't have 100 like some
Offline
Indeed...I started using the license field on most of my pkgs anyway.
Offline
what does this mean to the normal user?
He may look like an idiot and talk like an idiot but don't let that fool you. He really is an idiot.
- - - Groucho Marx
Registered Linux User #319935
Registered Linux Machine #204881
Offline
define normal.
a normal user that doesn't build packages shouldn't see a difference, a normal user that builds packages should now include a license field in their packages.
Dusty
Offline
And a correct license field at that...
or risk my wrath..which is mighty...
Offline
*shrugs*
bring it on....
Dusty
Offline
as if I am refering to you, Mr Dusty?
Offline
no, I just want some wrath to fight...
Dusty
Offline
dibble's wrath smells funny - I think it needs a bath
Offline
BSD is a special case and cannot be included in the 'common' licenses pkg.
I can't see why this is a special-case. Can someone learn'd elucidate for a simpleton?
Offline
because each one has its own copyright line. Each BSD package should have its unique license stored in /usr/share/licenses/$pkgname.
That explain it?
Offline
- just goes to show - you really can't trust people to read the docs. I'd be so ashamed if I'd said that
Offline
Ah, I didn't realise that the BSD license was like that.
All right Dibble, chill out. I know you're trying to leapfrog Dusty's post count, but still...
Offline
Oh, I'm chilled right out - 3 months ago I would have been spitting with fury...after all I did write that doc and spent ages trying to get it approved while being generally ignored.
No wonder it took so long to get a new documentor - you write docs, no one gives a shit and then no one reads them properly! I don't mean just you aroo, you probably have no idea how much hassle this issue causes in the AUR.
Offline
Pages: 1