[Fedora-packaging] Re: License Tag Draft

Axel Thimm Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Fri Jul 27 14:39:13 UTC 2007

On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 10:05:29PM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 02:16 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 04:34:00PM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > > (And I nominate "+=" as the most logical and ugliest operator for the
> > > job :-)
> > 
> > 
> > A comparison operator (>=) would make more sense
> Your nomination is definitely more logical, but no less ugly :-(
> License: GPLv2 >= || MPLv1.1

I didn't imply postfix notation.

> We could break the version apart from the license tag.  I don't know if
> that makes it harder for spot's use case or not::
> License: GPL >= v2 || MPL == v1.1

Me thinks that spot and anyone else will be more than capable to parse
anything properly, even if it's "or" instead of "||" and ">=" instead
of "+=$%&/§"

The most important thing is to not disrupt current packaging practices
too much. What this means is that if 99% of current "GPL >= v2"
packages have "GPL" in their License: tag, then simply define "GPL" to
mean that and only fix th remain one percent.

Currently it looks like there would be a mass rebuild for License tags
only. I'm all for at least one mass rebuild per release, but not for
a retagging of Licenses to Polish notation like parsing structures.
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/attachments/20070727/a81431a8/attachment.sig>

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list