On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Thomas Bruederli <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 19:01, till <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 5:58 PM, Thomas Bruederli <[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> > >> On 03.12.2011, at 20:51, till wrote: > >> > >> > > >> > On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 6:32 PM, A.L.E.C <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > W dniu 02.12.2011 18:05, till wrote: > >> > > >> > > Never saw srcuri with PEAR packages: > >> > > http://pear.php.net/manual/en/guide.developers.package2.pecl.php > >> > > > >> > > It looks like it's pecl related. What are you trying to achieve with > >> > > it? > >> > > >> > As stated in my first post in this thread, for AGPL plugins we need to > >> > provide a link to source code. > >> > > >> > Reminds me to vote against the AGPL move. > >> > >> The AGPL suggestion for Roundcube core has actually nothing to do with > the > >> requirement of making the source code of plugins available which are > >> published under AGPL- > >> > > >> > So, we need some URL field in package.xml. > >> > > >> > Maybe I don't get it – but a pear package does not compile code. It's > >> > zipped up code in tar archive, compressed with gzip. The source is > >> > available. Can you explain why this link is necessary or who claims > that > >> > it's necessary? > >> > >> If you install a plugin which in licensed under AGPL you have to provide > >> the source to the users of that system. That's required by the AGPL > itself. > >> > >> We (Roundcube) want to take the burden of collecting the links to all > the > >> AGPL sources away from the sysadmins which install Roundcube with AGPL > >> plugins but collect them all in a single place. That's why we want the > URL > >> to the source of an AGPL plugin to be stated in the package itself. Of > >> course we could also add some script which collects all the files > directly > >> from the Roundcube installation directory but this brings in some > security > >> topics which I'd like to avoid. > > > > > > Ok, so just to be clear – you want something like a link to e.g. our > > RoundCube svn repo, or a github repo, or sf, etc. where the source of the > > package is located? > > Exactly. > > > > If so, I think there are two option: > > > > 1) Create a README and/or LICENSE file which contains the information and > > install them with the 'doc' role. > > 2) Add the link to the package's <description> > > That's the obvious approach but it isn't necessarily machine readable. > Roundcube (trunk) lists all activated plugins in an "about" page and > we want to show a download link to every AGPL plugin listed there. So > what we're looking for is a tag in the xml schema where one can store > that url and the <srcuri> seems to be exactly what we need. But what's > that <srcuri> actually meant for and why is the package validator > complaining if one uses it? > > And after all, I actually give a shit about the pear package validator > because we're not using pear to maintain and distribute our plugins > anyway. > We could decide on a file called SOURCE which contains the link to make it more machine-readable. I think <srcuri> is for pecl packages. pecl packages are c-extensions. http://pear.php.net/manual/en/guide.developers.package2.pecl.php Both pecl and pear packages use a package.xml (2.0 currently) to be installed. But they don't always share the same "elements". Till > > ~Thomas >
_______________________________________________ List info: http://lists.roundcube.net/dev/ BT/8f4f07cd
