Re: Cabal package descriptions

On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 07:55:01AM -0800, Isaac Jones wrote:

Ross Paterson writes:

...

(repeated) License and License-File should not be mutually exclusive. They're both useful, for different purposes. Perhaps License would be more accurately called License-Type.

I would like to make the license field required without being very burdensome to the user; I feel like the license-file field is a bit more burdensome and it's hard for me to justify making it required. Do you still want to have a file as an option in the license-type field?

I guess we could make either/or required. What do you think about what should be required?

I'm not suggesting making License-File required; it's just that now the two fields conflict because they set the same field in the PackageDescription. I've suggesting that License (or Licence-Type) set a field that is an enumeration of constants, and Licence-File set a new FilePath field. I don't don't think either is required now. If you want to make Licence-Type required, I wouldn't mind.