Re: package description fields

On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 08:43:16AM -0800, Isaac Jones wrote:

Ross Paterson writes:

...

Is it sufficient to put License: BSD3 in the package description? Or should License-File be mandatory, and License just an optional hint?

I don't really want to force people to Do the Right Thing necessarily, I just want to force them to think about a license before they put something in Hackage.

My problem is that these two fields are currently mutually exclusive, but I think they're both useful: - License gives an executive summary, imprecise but a quick guide. - License-File names a file that I can read for the details, and which the build system should copy into the installation directory (this will often be necessary to satisfy the licence). So I think authors should be able and encouraged to provide both, and certainly not encouraged to just provide License.

...

It doesn't seem to be very useful to have both a library and executables that use it in the same package (at least with the meaning implemented for GHC). One has to list all the library modules again under each executable.

Which field are you referring to here? buildDepends? I think I agree.

Not really a field but the overall structure. I'm agreeing with what Simon said in http://www.haskell.org//pipermail/cvs-libraries/2005-January/003225.html