| 1 |
Related issue: Many metapackages are marked "as-is". If they install |
| 2 |
no files at all, then they should technically have the empty string |
| 3 |
as LICENSE. Which is forbidden by repoman. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
Alternatively, we could introduce an own "metapackage" license label |
| 6 |
for these packages (suggested by Matija Šuklje to licenses@g.o) and |
| 7 |
add it to the appropriate license groups. Text would be as follows: |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
╓────[ licenses/metapackage ] |
| 10 |
║ This is a metapackage that (itself) installs no files, therefore no |
| 11 |
║ license is needed. |
| 12 |
║ |
| 13 |
║ This does not in any way imply under which licenses the packages in it |
| 14 |
║ are distributed. Check the metapackage's dependencies for their actual |
| 15 |
║ license terms. |
| 16 |
╙──── |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
If you don't object, I would commit this and also update the license |
| 19 |
info of any metapackage I come across. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Ulrich |
Archives