> On Fri, 2021-12-17 at 00:17 +0100, Justin Kromlinger via aur-general wrote:
> > On Fri, 17 Dec 2021 01:05:19 +0200
> >
> > silentnoodle via aur-general wrote:
> > > hey all,
> > >
> > > Today a package i co maintain (telegram-desktop-bin) was deleted because
> > > "Package exists in official c
Hey,
Most use env vars or sourcing of extra files during build for this kind of
purpose. For env vars the only downside is that they are not preserved in
chroot see:
https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/44827
For linux-pf I use this and add the to the sources of the packages:
https://aur.archlinux.o
Also I might add that since [1][3] the license is not just GPL but extented.
If packager does modications to the software to fix its packageging e.g. [2]
its author says it is a fork?
[1] https://github.com/lawl/NoiseTorch/commit/
0ef8229e6fb54c50ec16dd64e24fb32e49b3b207#diff-
c693279643b8cd5
> I've switched the PKGBUILD to a VCS source and removed
any source code
> modifications [0]. It should now be compliant with the
license and the
> wishes of the upstream maintainer.
Does the license of the package still match? The statement
conflicts with the GPL (or any FOSS license for that
> The license is very clear. I am not going to debate with
everyone if any
> individual patch is acceptable or not.
Your argument holds no candle. If you distribute a software as
GPL I can modify in any shape or form I want as long as I
honor the license,
e.g apply modifications you don't like.
