[Frugalware-devel] subpkgs vs docs

[Miklos Vajna]

On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 05:01:55PM +0100, Gabriel C <crazy at pimpmylinux.org> wrote:
> In fact I don't like that as well but we have to do something about.
> 
> I think we could do in fact 2 and 3 and let the developer decide in what way he want provide the LICENSE
> files for such packages. E.g: add a new option like sublicense and do nothing by default but check for it
> and if foo package has subpackages but sublicense is not set nor an foo-license subpackage exists error out
> with a nice message and point to the man page or alike.
> 
> Sounds crazy he ? =)

yes ;)

speaking about directives, i got an idea. we already have a license
directive, but it's optional and we don't really use it. what about
making it required for pkgs where there are subpkgs?

that would add no duplication but the user would have some info about
what license the package has.

- VMiklos
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /pipermail/attachments/20080122/2bc88e1f/attachment.sig