X-Original-To: alpine-devel@lists.alpinelinux.org Delivered-To: alpine-devel@mail.alpinelinux.org Received: from tux29.hoststar.ch (tux29.hoststar.ch [85.10.192.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.alpinelinux.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 44B9E12E1CB1 for ; Sat, 25 Jun 2011 20:10:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from laptop021.local.network (77-56-73-198.dclient.hispeed.ch [77.56.73.198]) (authenticated bits=0) by tux29.hoststar.ch (8.13.8/8.12.11) with ESMTP id p5PKALtL008355 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sat, 25 Jun 2011 22:10:22 +0200 Message-ID: <4E0640A7.2050301@affolter-engineering.ch> Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2011 22:10:15 +0200 From: Fabian Affolter User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110428 Fedora/3.1.10-1.fc15 Lightning/1.0b3pre Thunderbird/3.1.10 X-Mailinglist: alpine-devel Precedence: list List-Id: Alpine Development List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 To: alpine-devel@lists.alpinelinux.org Subject: Re: [alpine-devel] weplab APKBUILD References: <4E0611C5.3020306@affolter-engineering.ch> <20110625200344.26051046.blink@bojary.koba.pl> In-Reply-To: <20110625200344.26051046.blink@bojary.koba.pl> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 06/25/2011 08:03 PM, Paul Onyschuk wrote: > Option "depends_dev" is used to specify dependencies of dev subpackage. > It's pretty common that "makedepends" shares some entries with > "depends_dev", but with weplab it isn't the case - weplab doesn't have > dev subpackage. > > So you need only: makedepends="libpcap-dev wireless-tools-dev" It seams that I misunderstood that. > Secondly instructions like install should be always included in > package() section. Nice thing about aports is that, you can run commands > like "abuild prepare", "abuild build" and so on. Putting "install" in > build() section pretty much kills purpose of this separation. According to the wiki build() was mentioned as the section to place the "installation" of the license. I changed that in the wiki. > On the side notes, I don't see any reason why you should provide weplab > package with license file. Weblap uses standard license (GPL2) and ain't > no library. I was wondering if there is any documentation available about the valid licenses tags. In the Fedora world the packager should indicate if the the license is "GPL 2 (or later version)" or GPL2-only. How is this handled for Alpine Linux? Thanks for your help, Paul. Fabian --- Unsubscribe: alpine-devel+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org Help: alpine-devel+help@lists.alpinelinux.org ---