On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 01:44:58 -0400 Eric Bélanger <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 9:15 PM, Eric Bélanger<[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 8:34 PM, Xyne<[email protected]> wrote: > >> A small public repo of compiled AUR packages reminded me of something. > >> > >> What's the official policy for providing source code for GPL'd binary > >> packages in [community]? I know there was a long discussion about this > >> with some phraknagging eventually leading to a source "repository" for > >> core and maybe extra. Although it would most likely never happen it is > >> possible for someone to show up after nearly 3 years and request a > >> previous package's source code. > >> > >> I suppose that previously the devs could argue that [community] was "not > >> official" and relegate all obligations to the packagers (although only > >> tentatively). Now that [community] is integrated more tightly with > >> [core] and [extra] it seems that this is something at least worth a > >> discussion. > > > > We will definitely create sourceballs for (L)GPL2 community packages. > > We were waiting for the svn switch for the community repo because the > > sourceball script is using svn to get package information. The > > community repo support was added in the dbscripts git. We just need to > > update the dbscripts on the server. Meanwhile, TU should check that > > their package have the license specified. > > I forgot some useful links. > > Current community packages with missing licenses : > http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/User:Snowman/License_Rebuild_TODO > > As some of this stuff haven't been rebuilt in a while, other things > that might need to be fixed: > http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/User:Snowman/License_Rebuild_Checklist Thanks for the reply.
