separate nonfree libs into dedicated subpackage #5
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
For the code in |
|
Of course, thanks for the suggestion! |
dbenoit17
force-pushed
the
master
branch
5 times, most recently
from
a857249 to
9c45029
Compare
|
Should be all set now. |
|
Sorry, but this is a super picky thing, but could you make that util module be |
create docs-util.rkt
|
Fixed! |
|
Thank you very much! I'm merging now. |
LiberalArtist
added a commit
to LiberalArtist/srfi
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 22, 2021
Add comments explaining the restrictive license on the SRFI 5 and (maybe) SRFI 29 documents (see <https://srfi-email.schemers.org/srfi-29/msg/17982886/> for details on the latter). Since this license doesn't have an SPDX identifier, we don't define `license` in "srfi-doc-nonfree/info.rkt" for now. To clarify that the Racket and Scribble files in "srfi-doc-nonfree" are freely licensed, mark each one with machine-readable SPDX comment headers, in addition to the more detailed explanations. Fix a typo in "LICENSE" and rename it to "LICENSE.txt" for consistency. Related to racket#4 Related to racket#5 Related to racket#7 Related to racket#12
samth
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 22, 2021
Add comments explaining the restrictive license on the SRFI 5 and (maybe) SRFI 29 documents (see <https://srfi-email.schemers.org/srfi-29/msg/17982886/> for details on the latter). Since this license doesn't have an SPDX identifier, we don't define `license` in "srfi-doc-nonfree/info.rkt" for now. To clarify that the Racket and Scribble files in "srfi-doc-nonfree" are freely licensed, mark each one with machine-readable SPDX comment headers, in addition to the more detailed explanations. Fix a typo in "LICENSE" and rename it to "LICENSE.txt" for consistency. Related to #4 Related to #5 Related to #7 Related to #12
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR is intended to reduce the impact of restrictively licensed components within
racket/srfi. See the following github issue #4.Currently, package maintainers for GNU/Linux distributions with strict licensing policies must remove the nonfree components from this package before distributing the Racket main distribution. This brings up the following two concerns:
Extra work is required for package maintainers to manually remove nonfree components for each Racket release.
Distro users are not able to resolve the nonfree components via raco once they are removed by package maintainers.
This PR mitigates both of the above issues with the following changes.
Changelog:
srfi-lib-nonfreesrfi-lib-nonfreesrfi-doc-nonfreesrfi-doc-nonfreeNotes:
The SRFI 29 library and documents end up being distributed in separate packages, because its implementation is free while its docs are not. This decision was made because SRFI 29 is a dependency of SRFI 19, which is itself a dependency of other packages in the main distribution. SRFI 29 should therefore not be removed by package maintainers along with the nonfree SRFI components.
I have tested the changes, and they build and work for me as expected. I did need to add the two new subpackages to links.rktd in order for them to build with the main distribution.