Search Criteria
Package Details: pinfo-patched-git 1:0.6.13.r10.r0.gb6fd491-4
Package Actions
Git Clone URL: | https://aur.archlinux.org/pinfo-patched-git.git (read-only, click to copy) |
---|---|
Package Base: | pinfo-patched-git |
Description: | A hypertext info file viewer (patched bug-fix version) |
Upstream URL: | https://github.com/plp13/pinfo |
Licenses: | GPL-2.0-only |
Conflicts: | pinfo, pinfo-git |
Provides: | pinfo |
Submitter: | plp |
Maintainer: | plp |
Last Packager: | plp |
Votes: | 2 |
Popularity: | 0.002483 |
First Submitted: | 2023-09-19 17:15 (UTC) |
Last Updated: | 2025-02-22 14:15 (UTC) |
Dependencies (3)
- ncurses (ncurses-gitAUR)
- readline (readline-gitAUR)
- git (git-gitAUR, git-glAUR) (make)
Required by (1)
- nncp (requires pinfo) (optional)
Latest Comments
plp commented on 2025-02-22 14:15 (UTC)
OK, OK. I fixed it again :-)
Andrei_Korshikov commented on 2025-02-22 14:11 (UTC) (edited on 2025-02-22 14:11 (UTC) by Andrei_Korshikov)
@kseistrup Hmm… If we don't include a version in the provides, then something like "depends=('pinfo>=version')" can never satisfy the requirement. On the other side, as you said, for
-git
package this value will become outdated with time.. Ok, I don't know what is better (or worse):D Thank you for pointing out:)As for the license, README.md reads: "you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of version 2 of the GNU General Public License". So, it is not "or later" case.
@plp Yes, I agree, with your thoughts, and I've seen your PR;) I also hope it will be merged:)
plp commented on 2025-02-22 14:00 (UTC) (edited on 2025-02-22 14:00 (UTC) by plp)
I just added
provides("pinfo")
. I don't believe anything is going to depend on a specific version ofpinfo
any time soon, and I'm also not sure how versioning will progress with the new maintainer. So, even something like provides=("pinfo=0.6.13") might be wrong.Hopefully, my fixes will be merged upstream at some point, and we'll be able to delete this package.
kseistrup commented on 2025-02-22 13:51 (UTC) (edited on 2025-02-22 13:51 (UTC) by kseistrup)
PPS: And by the way: When I suggested
GPL-2.0-or-later
it was because I quickly searched for “any later” in the license file. It is there, but seemingly only as a suggestion, so perhaps the correct license identifier really isGPL-2.0-only
.While I approve the GPL family of licenses, the license files themselves do a sh*tty job of showing exactly which version they are. It should be stated clearly at the top of the file, INHO, and not require you to read 12 kB of legal gobbledygook.
Sorry for the rant. I know the packager is innocent. I just had to get it out.
kseistrup commented on 2025-02-22 13:46 (UTC)
@Andrei_Korshikov I guess you're right. However, this is a
*-git
package wherepkgver
for the final package is calculated at build time. The$pkgver
part ofprovides=("pinfo=${pkgver}")
will be the value provided when thePKGBUILD
was last pushed to AUR. Those two could be significantly different.Andrei_Korshikov commented on 2025-02-22 13:30 (UTC)
@kseistrup Or, even better:
provides=("pinfo=${pkgver}")
if something will depend on pinfo version. Unlikely, of course, but why not?kseistrup commented on 2025-02-22 13:26 (UTC) (edited on 2025-02-22 13:27 (UTC) by kseistrup)
Thanks for packaging this!
Shouldn't it have a
?
Cheers.
PS: And the license should be
GPL-2.0-or-later
, now that Arch is using SPDX compliant license identifiers.plp commented on 2024-04-17 14:44 (UTC) (edited on 2024-04-17 14:44 (UTC) by plp)
Andrei, unfortunately I'm not going to do much more work on pinfo. Going through its source code, it seemed quite messed up. So, I wrote my own manual page viewer called qman (q coming after p).
https://github.com/plp13/qman
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/qman-git
It doesn't support info pages, only man/apropos/whatis. But I find it quite useful.
Andrei_Korshikov commented on 2024-04-14 15:55 (UTC)
@plp Pantelis, thank you for your work!