[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: various packaging issues

From: Ludovic Courtès
Subject: Re: various packaging issues
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 16:37:16 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2 (gnu/linux)

Dave Love <address@hidden> skribis:

> address@hidden (Ludovic Courtès) writes:


>> Dave Love <address@hidden> skribis:
>>> * I should specify a disjunction of licences like "BSD or GPLv2" rather
>>>   than the conjunction, which seems to be represented as a list (though
>>>   the doc doesn't say what a list represents).  I.e. in Fedora-ish
>>>   rpm-speak, I have A or B, rather than C and D.  Is that possible?
>> We cannot specify it currently, so what we do is just provide a list of
>> license objects as the ‘license’ field and explain the meaning of the
>> list in a comment.
>> Clearly this can be improved, though we have to pay attention of
>> overengineering in this domain.
> It seems to me that you need to be able to treat licences similarly to
> Fedora and Debian.  They're not obviously over-engineered, and the
> treatment of licensing must be constrained by legalities, which may or
> may not allow simple engineering :-/.

Sure, agreed.

>> For Python 2 vs. 3, there’s the ‘package-with-python2’ procedure, which
>> you can see in (gnu packages python).
> Yes, but that seems to deal with packages just for python modules,

Right, it stops at the first non-python-build-system dependency.  That
said, ‘package-mapping’ allows you to do arbitrary graph rewriting, so
that might be what you’re looking for.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]