[93709] trunk/dports/devel/atk/Portfile

[Ryan Schmidt]

On May 28, 2012, at 21:36, Joshua Root wrote:

> On 2012-5-29 12:24 , Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>> 
>> On May 28, 2012, at 19:14, jmr at macports.org wrote:
>> 
>>> Revision: 93709
>>>         https://trac.macports.org/changeset/93709
>>> Author:   jmr at macports.org
>>> Date:     2012-05-28 17:14:22 -0700 (Mon, 28 May 2012)
>>> Log Message:
>>> -----------
>>> atk: remove unused gtk-doc dep (#31348), use preferred license format, remove unnecessary muniversal
>>> 
>>> Modified Paths:
>>> --------------
>>>   trunk/dports/devel/atk/Portfile
>>> 
>>> Modified: trunk/dports/devel/atk/Portfile
>>> ===================================================================
>>> --- trunk/dports/devel/atk/Portfile	2012-05-29 00:02:18 UTC (rev 93708)
>>> +++ trunk/dports/devel/atk/Portfile	2012-05-29 00:14:22 UTC (rev 93709)
>>> @@ -2,14 +2,13 @@
>>> # $Id$
>>> 
>>> PortSystem              1.0
>>> -PortGroup               muniversal 1.0
>>> 
>>> name                    atk
>>> version                 2.2.0
>>> epoch                   2
>>> set branch              [join [lrange [split ${version} .] 0 1] .]
>>> categories              devel
>>> -license                 LGPL-2+
>>> +license                 LGPL
>> 
>> I thought we preferred to be as specific and accurate as possible on the license? atk's source files state:
>> 
>> * This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
>> * modify it under the terms of the GNU Library General Public
>> * License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either
>> * version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
>> 
>> If your point is that version 2 is the first version of the LGPL that existed, then that's true, but seeing "LGPL" in a portfile gives a reader the impression that the author did not bother to verify which version of the license was in use, whereas "LGPL-2+" makes it clear that this information was determined and duly recorded in the portfile.
> 
> The Guide says to leave out the version number entirely if any version
> of the license can be used.

Then I think we should change the guide. It's happened before that someone lists "GPL" in a port without specifying which version. It's good to be able to discern from reading the license line whether the maintainer was lazy or whether any license version would be ok.