Re: com web/pecl: check for the LICENSE or COPYING presence in tarballs: public_html/release-upload.php

hi Hannes, On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 8:16 PM, Hannes Magnusson <hannes.magnusson@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 1:14 AM, Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Another point is that you keep repeating "windows" while the relation to >>>> any binary distribution was clearly stated. The point just has come, >>>> where the need for clear license information is collapsed for multiple >>> >>> Well, we currently only support source distribution, and Windows >>> binaries. We don't provide other binaries at the moment. If my >>> mentioning of Windows was of any shame to you, then I apologize. It >>> was only meant to note that the due to the inclusion of the Windows >>> build system some breaking changes have been made. >> >> The extension is broken if the versions do not match, they should not >> be released with broken version numbers. Fix it and repackage sound >> like the right way. > > o.O I don't know how this answer is related. But yes, if the version > is fuckedup that definitely should have been covered by a > prevalidation check. > Its silly however if these validations only happen during uploading of > a package, all of them should be implemented in the packaging tool > itself ofcourse. Of course, but I'm not active anymore in pear, so someone else has to implement it there. >>> And what about the extensions that bundle external library, for >>> example pecl/zip, which both Pierre and Remi are the authors of.. How >>> are you including the license of libzip? >> >> We do it. See https://github.com/pierrejoye/php_zip/ >> >> LICENSE It the license of the extension itself, and we include other >> flicense files for the bundle libraries. > > Then I am missing something. > The current release of pecl/zip contains no license file in the .zip > archives, and as far as I can tell from the uploading check I doesn't > assign any special meaning to LICENSE_libzip, so afaict it will not > include that file in the archive when you do the next release? Actually the more I think about it the more I think we could check for license|copying* but license*.c and license*.h. That should cover everything. The license must be in the root dir tho'. > Maybe the binary building process should create a doc/ folder > (including all role="doc" into), and we should create a new > role="license" pointing to the license file(s)? Yes, same for examples or tests. That's in our todos. Cheers, -- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org