Re: ghostscript & agpl

[David Holland <dholland-pkgtech%netbsd.org@localhost>]

On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 08:25:18PM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
 > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 08:49:44AM +1300, David Sainty wrote:
 > >  > Whilst not necessarily a vote, I will say that unless you're a user
 > >  > that's tracking the reason for decisions in Pkgsrc, having a default
 > >  > "ghostscript" and then another "ghostscript-xxx" can be confusing,
 > >  > because it's not clear which one you want - does one have extra
 > >  > features? Is one deprecated?
 > >
 > > That's a good point.
 > 
 > It is a good point, but I think a sane default is that the unqualified
 > name aims to be what upstream considers the canonical version.  In the
 > case of ghostscript, upstream's view is clearly "ghostscript is AGPL,
 > what's the problem, stop whining".  We're talking about having an extra
 > package for people that don't like that.

At this point there is no package with the unqualified name. I don't
entirely like it either, but with one thing and the other I think it's
the least bad alternative.

 > Also, I believe that we should explain in DESCR what the different is
 > between packages with similar names.  Having the exact same DESCR is not
 > useful.

Indeed. Fixed.

-- 
David A. Holland
dholland%netbsd.org@localhost