x11-misc/albert: version bump to 0.22.17 #33403
Conversation
Pull Request assignmentSubmitter: @CaseOf x11-misc/albert: @CaseOf, @gentoo/proxy-maint Linked bugsBugs linked: 915881 In order to force reassignment and/or bug reference scan, please append Docs: Code of Conduct ● Copyright policy (expl.) ● Devmanual ● GitHub PRs ● Proxy-maint guide |
gentoo-bot
added
self-maintained
Pull request CI reportReport generated at: 2023-10-18 20:36 UTC There are existing issues already. Please look into the report to make sure none of them affect the packages in question: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please check if the dependencies on the left are still required (they might be), and add the dependency on the right.
* VDB: detected possibly incorrect RDEPEND (x11-misc/albert-0.22.14)
* dev-cpp/muParser <
* dev-qt/qt5compat:6 <
* > dev-qt/qtdeclarative:6
* Warning: KDE/QT may be using QML plugins, review before removing dependencies
Also, is there a reason for keeping so many old versions in the tree? Maybe spot the last GPL version released and keep it, in case there is one, but the rest should probably be removed.
|
|
||
| PYTHON_COMPAT=( python3_{10,11,12} ) | ||
|
|
||
| inherit cmake python-single-r1 xdg-utils |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If you inherit xdg instead of xdg-utils you can drop both pkg_postinst and pkg_postrm (this is only a suggestion)
| python-extensions? ( https://github.com/albertlauncher/python/archive/${PYTHON_EXTENSIONS_COMMIT}.tar.gz -> ${PN}-python-extensions-${PYTHON_EXTENSIONS_COMMIT}.tar.gz ) | ||
| " | ||
|
|
||
| LICENSE="all-rights-reserved" # unclear licensing #766129 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There is a license file added in 0.22.4, you may want to check it and update this
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe take a look at the long license issue too
There was a problem hiding this comment.
should I add license to portage tree inside license directory? preferably in a different commit?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, first a commit with the license, then the ebuild.
| src_prepare() { | ||
| mv "${WORKDIR}"/plugins-${PLUGINS_HASH}/* "${S}"/plugins || die | ||
| if use python-extensions; then | ||
| mv "${WORKDIR}"/python-${PYTHON_EXTENSIONS_COMMIT}/* "${S}"/plugins/python/plugins |
CaseOf
force-pushed
the
albert
branch
2 times, most recently
from
f705082
to
459903e
Compare
CaseOf
changed the title
Pull request CI reportReport generated at: 2024-01-04 20:59 UTC There are existing issues already. Please look into the report to make sure none of them affect the packages in question: |
Signed-off-by: Quentin Retornaz <gentoo@retornaz.com>
Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/915881 Signed-off-by: Quentin Retornaz <gentoo@retornaz.com>
|
updated license |
Pull request CI reportReport generated at: 2024-01-05 23:43 UTC There are existing issues already. Please look into the report to make sure none of them affect the packages in question: |
|
@CaseOf in most cases keeping the last 2 versions is enough. |
| python-extensions? ( https://github.com/albertlauncher/python/archive/${PYTHON_EXTENSIONS_COMMIT}.tar.gz -> ${PN}-python-extensions-${PYTHON_EXTENSIONS_COMMIT}.tar.gz ) | ||
| " | ||
|
|
||
| LICENSE="Albert-1.0" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is a falsehood and I object to it -- please revert.
At minimum, the software is not licensed under Albert-1.0, it is licensed under "bits and pieces of external GPL contributions, plus Albert-1.0".
Most likely, it is legally forbidden for a user to manually git clone https://github.com/albertlauncher/albert, then compile and install it in their $HOME -- because to do so would be to be aiding and abetting an ongoing copyright infringement. In that case, Gentoo should not be including an ebuild for it either.
This is NOT the same as an ordinary package that happens to be proprietary software and which is entirely fine for users to download and install -- and for which Gentoo has a legitimate use case to help users do that, even if it has to be mirror-restricted since Gentoo doesn't have the legal authority to redistribute copies and the users must go directly to the original source.
IMO the original "all-rights-reserved" was completely 100% correct, since this is the least we can do in order to indicate that the licensing situation is significantly more complicated than the upstream author "license" claims, and "all-rights-reserved" put the onus on users to investigate whether and how they can use that.
The current state of affairs is that even after @ulm added RESTRICT="mirror bindist" back, users are erroneously made to think that as long as they are okay with the contents of licenses/Albert-1.0, it's okay to install and use this software.
No description provided.