Subject: [alpine-devel] weplab APKBUILD

From: Fabian Affolter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2011 18:50:13 +0200

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:  [email-masked]
Help:         [email-masked]
---

---

From: Paul Onyschuk <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2011 20:03:44 +0200

On Sat, 25 Jun 2011 18:50:13 +0200
Fabian Affolter <[email-masked]> 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 <[email-masked]>

---

---

From: Fabian Affolter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2011 22:10:15 +0200

> 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

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

> package with license file. Weblap uses standard license (GPL2) and ain't

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

---

---

From: Paul Onyschuk <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 00:33:35 +0200

On Sat, 25 Jun 2011 22:10:15 +0200
Fabian Affolter <[email-masked]> 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.

---

---

From: Natanael Copa <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 11:02:27 +0200

On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 00:33:35 +0200

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

+1

Improving wiki is worth a lot. A big thanks!

-nc

---