~alpine/devel

4 3

[alpine-devel] weplab APKBUILD

Fabian Affolter
Details
Message ID
<4E0611C5.3020306@affolter-engineering.ch>
Sender timestamp
1309020613
DKIM signature
missing
Download raw message
Hi all,

Some minutes ago I sent an initial APKBUILD for weplab [1] to this list.
It's my first package for Alpine Linux and because of that I really
would like to get some feedback.

Thanks in advance.

Kind regards,

Fabian

[1] http://weplab.sourceforge.net/


---
Unsubscribe:  alpine-devel+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org
Help:         alpine-devel+help@lists.alpinelinux.org
---
Paul Onyschuk
Details
Message ID
<20110625200344.26051046.blink@bojary.koba.pl>
In-Reply-To
<4E0611C5.3020306@affolter-engineering.ch> (view parent)
Sender timestamp
1309025024
DKIM signature
missing
Download raw message
On Sat, 25 Jun 2011 18:50:13 +0200
Fabian Affolter <fabian@affolter-engineering.ch> wrote:

> 
> Hi all,
> 
> Some minutes ago I sent an initial APKBUILD for weplab [1] to this
> list. It's my first package for Alpine Linux and because of that I
> really would like to get some feedback.
> 
> Thanks in advance.
> 

Hi Fabian. I'm not experienced with aports either, but I can point out
few thing.

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"

Secondly intructions 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.

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.

Rest is fine :)

Cheers.

-- 
Paul Onyschuk <blink@bojary.koba.pl>


---
Unsubscribe:  alpine-devel+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org
Help:         alpine-devel+help@lists.alpinelinux.org
---
Fabian Affolter
Details
Message ID
<4E0640A7.2050301@affolter-engineering.ch>
In-Reply-To
<20110625200344.26051046.blink@bojary.koba.pl> (view parent)
Sender timestamp
1309032615
DKIM signature
missing
Download raw message
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
---
Paul Onyschuk
Details
Message ID
<20110626003335.315b70f8.blink@bojary.koba.pl>
In-Reply-To
<4E0640A7.2050301@affolter-engineering.ch> (view parent)
Sender timestamp
1309041215
DKIM signature
missing
Download raw message
On Sat, 25 Jun 2011 22:10:15 +0200
Fabian Affolter <fabian@affolter-engineering.ch> wrote:

> 
> According to the wiki build() was mentioned as the section to place
> the "installation" of the license. I changed that in the wiki.
> 

I've seen other work you have done on wiki - you didn't waste time for
sure. Thanks.

> 
> 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?
>

As for license cult worship rituals, I'm aware of the problem, mainly
because of my *BSD background. Licensing and copyright is also in my
personal interest, but in this case I don't see problem.

Libraries are the place when you need special attention. In edge
situation you can create derivative work and hit distribution clause
with GPL. With simple binaries like weplab it's much clearer.

Beside that license information in aports is on same level as
description AFAIK - no practicial usage. As comparison in NetBSD pkgsrc
you can flag specific licenses, so some packages are exclueded from
building etc.

-- 
Paul Onyschuk <blink@bojary.koba.pl>


---
Unsubscribe:  alpine-devel+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org
Help:         alpine-devel+help@lists.alpinelinux.org
---
Natanael Copa
Details
Message ID
<20110627110227.798a2415@ncopa-desktop.nor.wtbts.net>
In-Reply-To
<20110626003335.315b70f8.blink@bojary.koba.pl> (view parent)
Sender timestamp
1309165347
DKIM signature
missing
Download raw message
On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 00:33:35 +0200
Paul Onyschuk <blink@bojary.koba.pl> wrote:

> On Sat, 25 Jun 2011 22:10:15 +0200
> Fabian Affolter <fabian@affolter-engineering.ch> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > According to the wiki build() was mentioned as the section to place
> > the "installation" of the license. I changed that in the wiki.
> > 
> 
> I've seen other work you have done on wiki - you didn't waste time for
> sure. Thanks.

+1

Improving wiki is worth a lot. A big thanks!

-nc


---
Unsubscribe:  alpine-devel+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org
Help:         alpine-devel+help@lists.alpinelinux.org
---