"Packager" field

Anton cbou at mail.ru
Fri Sep 29 12:53:39 UTC 2006

On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 02:23:30PM +0200, Mark Rosenstand wrote:
> Completely agreed. In contrast to the Packager field, the Maintainer
> field is actually useful - the Contributor idea was just to show that
> even the current "usage" of Packager (giving credit) is broken because
> it only allows one person to be listed :)

And the more general question is: What is Pkgfile's license?
Pkgfiles are programs, scripts, and they are expected to have some
license, or be in public domain.

It makes more sense to me smth like:
# This Pkgfile convered by GPL license. Copyright (c) ....

In case when several persons will contribute to Pkgfile, we'll end up with
something like:
# This Pkgfile convered by GPL license. Copyright (c) ....
# (c) ...
# (c) ...
# (c) ...

And that list will grow in time, and there will no way to cleanup such fields.
Plus, IMHO you can't do "(c) CRUX team", because "CRUX team" is neither
person nor formal organization.

It is very edgy question at least to me, because personally I think that
Packager field is "bloat" from practical POV, and because I have to
maintain CRUX-ARM on my own, that means I have to maintain Packager
field for the rest of my life. Though, if I must save these fields, then
right thing to do is s/Packager/Author/ and everything will clear to me.

Waiting for clarifications...


-- Anton (irc: bd2)

More information about the CRUX mailing list