Package Details: notekit-git r207.18b708d-1

Git Clone URL: https://aur.archlinux.org/notekit-git.git (read-only, click to copy)
Package Base: notekit-git
Description: A GTK3 hierarchical markdown notetaking application with tablet support.
Upstream URL: https://github.com/blackhole89/notekit
Licenses: GPL-3.0
Conflicts: notekit, notekit-git
Provides: notekit
Submitter: atemu
Maintainer: malacology
Last Packager: malacology
Votes: 4
Popularity: 0.134900
First Submitted: 2019-09-18 22:10 (UTC)
Last Updated: 2022-06-16 12:05 (UTC)

Pinned Comments

malacology commented on 2021-12-16 20:17 (UTC)

pkgbuild is public domain should not with license

Latest Comments

1 2 Next › Last »

sp1rit commented on 2021-12-17 12:42 (UTC)

Now compile must be with clatexmath

this it the problem when you just decide to package something without talking to us first. You can continue to compile without clatexmath just fine, either by invoking meson with -Dclatexmath=false or by using cmake, just like this package did before.

sp1rit commented on 2021-12-16 21:58 (UTC)

okay, deserve yourself

sorry, what?

malacology commented on 2021-12-16 21:52 (UTC)

okay, deserve yourself

sp1rit commented on 2021-12-16 21:47 (UTC) (edited on 2021-12-17 07:55 (UTC) by sp1rit)

there is dicussion about this, so, don't left any meaningless comments.

sorry, but I fail to understand what you want to tell me with this. could you elaborate?


additionaly, pkgbuilds without any kind of license header are not "public domain" but rather the creator has all rights reserved.

malacology commented on 2021-12-16 21:26 (UTC)

there is dicussion about this, so, don't left any meaningless comments.

sp1rit commented on 2021-12-16 21:20 (UTC)

pkgbuild is public domain should not with license

no. while most pacman package manifests don't have a license attached to them, there is no legal reason not to. In this case there was very clearly a AGPL-3.0 license header attached which must be honored, since I licensed it this way.

malacology commented on 2021-12-16 20:17 (UTC)

pkgbuild is public domain should not with license

sp1rit commented on 2021-12-16 18:11 (UTC) (edited on 2021-12-16 18:11 (UTC) by sp1rit)

@malacology

just because I cannot use that one, so I rebuild this one. / Also, let your PKGBUILD follow the guide.

I believe you should rather fix your machine. Given that it works on a clean archlinux:base-devel OCI container, it is almost guaranteed to be an issue with your machine. Again, did you make sure that you installed the base-devel group that the Arch guidelines require before building anything with makepkg? "Note: The group base-devel is assumed to be already installed when building with makepkg. Members of this group should not be included in makedepends array." (https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/PKGBUILD#makedepends)

Also, I don't think that AUR is not free and very strict and need any license to redistribute (maybe can not be called redistribute) from the original URL.

If I parse this correctly, you want to say that because this is just a build manifest (that users build themselfs), that you don't need to worry about license restrictions. While this is partially correct, I was referring to the PKGBUILD file itself, which you are very much redistributing. And it just so happens that the file was licensed by me under AGPL-3.0. And it is very much against the AGPL-3.0 to just strip out the copyright and license ._.

the renaming method is strange for me, I can disown it,if you want, I don't care, if I continue to maintain it, it will take a lot of time.

as I said, I'm not opposed to you maintaining it however I'm very much opposed to you just removing the license and my copyright. Also please come and join our Matrix/Discord when you want to package notekit. But if you want, I'd also take ownership of this package and then I'd discuss with Matvey/blackhole89 on how to proceed.

Also, let your PKGBUILD follow the guide.

as I've said, this pkgbuild is the one that is incorrect, as pkg-config is part of base-devel and cmake is not needed at all.

malacology commented on 2021-12-16 16:14 (UTC) (edited on 2021-12-16 16:22 (UTC) by malacology)

just because I cannot use that one, so I rebuild this one. the renaming method is strange for me, I can disown it,if you want, I don't care, if I continue to maintain it, it will take a lot of time. Also, I don't think that AUR is not free and very strict and need any license to redistribute (maybe can not be called redistribute) from the original URL. Also, let your PKGBUILD follow the guide.

sp1rit commented on 2021-12-16 16:11 (UTC)

Guoyi, could you tell me what your intention was with taking ownership of this package and pushing my PKGBUILD to it? While I'm not opposed to you wanting to maintain it, please come talk to us on Matrix (https://matrix.to/#/!qrAsPfOWegCOsSGhWc:tchncs.de?via=tchncs.de&via=matrix.org&via=t2bot.io) or Discord (https://discord.gg/WVas9aX6Ee). Otherwise you come off as very toxic and not someone we'd like to work with. I also don't really see why you took ownership of this package. Previously, notekit-git was basically notekit but without clatexmath (which originally needed to be vendored in) and if you need clm, you can use my notekit-clatexmath-git. Now this package still works and I didn't really see a reason to take it down, given that it coninued to build. Now you just barge in here, and basically republish the PKGBUILD from me. Even tho NoteKit's official README explicitly lists notekit-clatexmath-git as the officialy supported package. But if you end up copying someone elses work, you may NEVER just cut out their copyright and license. I feel quite offended by your action to strip out the license text and copyright from the PKGBUILD I wrote for notekit-clatexmath-git as that just seems like you stole my work. If you don't like the license (given AGPL-3.0) is quite restrictive for a package manifest, I'm usualy open to relicensing it under something less restrictive.