Re: various packaging issues

[Ludovic Courtès]

Dave Love <address@hidden> skribis:

> address@hidden (Ludovic Courtès) writes:

[...]

>> Dave Love <address@hidden> skribis:
>>
>>> * I should specify a disjunction of licences like "BSD or GPLv2" rather
>>>   than the conjunction, which seems to be represented as a list (though
>>>   the doc doesn't say what a list represents).  I.e. in Fedora-ish
>>>   rpm-speak, I have A or B, rather than C and D.  Is that possible?
>>
>> We cannot specify it currently, so what we do is just provide a list of
>> license objects as the ‘license’ field and explain the meaning of the
>> list in a comment.
>>
>> Clearly this can be improved, though we have to pay attention of
>> overengineering in this domain.
>
> It seems to me that you need to be able to treat licences similarly to
> Fedora and Debian.  They're not obviously over-engineered, and the
> treatment of licensing must be constrained by legalities, which may or
> may not allow simple engineering :-/.

Sure, agreed.

>> For Python 2 vs. 3, there’s the ‘package-with-python2’ procedure, which
>> you can see in (gnu packages python).
>
> Yes, but that seems to deal with packages just for python modules,

Right, it stops at the first non-python-build-system dependency.  That
said, ‘package-mapping’ allows you to do arbitrary graph rewriting, so
that might be what you’re looking for.

Ludo’.