At 23:12 Uhr +0100 26.01.2002, Max Horn wrote: >At 17:04 Uhr -0500 26.01.2002, David R. Morrison wrote: >>Thanks, Max, for doing all of this package validation stuff. >> >>I have one question though. For packages of type "nosource" or "bundle," >>do we really want a license field? If so, what should the rules be >>about that license field? Since we are not really redistributing anything >>with those packages, I wonder if it is appropriate. > >Hmmm, good point. We probably should have no license field. I will >adjust the validator accordingly, unless somebody thinks differently >(oh yeah, right, we are Apple guys, so we all Think Different, but >ya know what I mean :)
OK, it now doesn't warn for bundle package. it still warns for nosource packages, though - the difference between those essentially is that "bundle" works as an umbrella for other packages, hence doesn't need a license field. But "nosource" means a stand-alone package, which needs a license field. I suggest that system-tetex and tetex-macosx be changed accordingly. Cheers, Max -- ----------------------------------------------- Max Horn Software Developer email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> phone: (+49) 6151-494890 _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
