Arch Linux User Repository

@a821 Yes, it got a bit out of hand. Thank you for your patch!

@eclairevoyant Thanks for finding additional issues!

@a821 Are you going to provide patches for all this maintainers' other broken/outdated packages? Maintainers who don't want to maintain packages should drop them so they can be adopted by others who will.

Uff, what a pissing contest. @rogach there you have patch which updates the PKGBUILD to current guidelines: https://0x0.st/HcvU.patch

Anyone's feeling on the matter is irrelevant, as this violates packaging guidelines:

The BSD, ISC, MIT, zlib/png, Python and OFL licenses are special cases and could not be included in the licenses package, due to them including copyright notices ... Any package licensed under these five should have its own unique license file stored in /usr/share/licenses/_pkgname_/.

Also, there is another issue - the source tarball needs to be renamed as per https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/PKGBUILD#source:

The downloaded source filename must be unique because the SRCDEST directory can be the same for all packages. For instance, using the version number of the project as a filename potentially conflicts with other projects with the same version number. In this case, the alternative unique filename to be used is provided with the syntax source=('unique_package_name::file_uri'); e.g. source=("$pkgname-$pkgver.tar.gz::https://github.com/coder/program/archive/v$pkgver.tar.gz").

If you don't find these tasks "interesting" you are welcome to disown the package so that someone else can fix these issues.

EDIT: this also violates Python packaging guidelines as outlined in https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Python_package_guidelines#setuptools_or_distutils

Why do you want a patch for such a simple edit?

Because I'm not happy with the general idea of these license files in cases such as here. I think that it's useless legalese busywork, and I don't want to waste my time on it, however small amounts of time that might be. I have much more interesting tasks to dedicate my time to.

That said, I can begrudgingly accept that some people might have some use for these licenses. So if somebody sends in a patch that I can apply in a single git am command, I will apply it. If that is too difficult, then probably it's not that important.

I am not going to make a patch. I've already given you what you need to update the PKGBUILD yourself.

Why do you want a patch for such a simple edit?

I can update the package if you add me as comaintainer

No need for such drastic measures, patches can be sent via email (see git format-patch).

If you want, I can update the package if you add me as comaintainer. Otherwise, most of the work is already done in my last comment. You just need to paste into the appropriate sections. (Creating and sending patches around is double the work of just updating the package directly.)

@xiota Patches welcome, I guess.

ISC is not a standard license in the common directory (/usr/share/licenses/common). So you need to install a license file. For this package, I would add the following to sources, along with the sha256sum:

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/stefankoegl/kdtree/master/LICENSE

Then add the following to package()

install -vDm0644 "$srcdir/LICENSE" -t "$pkgdir/usr/share/licenses/$pkgname"