FS#8138 - License field isn't always properly displayed on the web interface

Attached to Project: AUR web interface
Opened by Aaron Bull Schaefer (elasticdog) - Wednesday, 26 September 2007, 23:30 GMT
Last edited by Loui Chang (louipc) - Thursday, 13 August 2009, 10:49 GMT
Task Type Bug Report
Category Backend
Status Closed
Assigned To Loui Chang (louipc)
Architecture All
Severity Low
Priority Normal
Reported Version 1.2.9
Due in Version Undecided
Due Date Undecided
Percent Complete 100%
Votes 4
Private No

Details

The license field for PKGBUILDs is not always properly parsed and displayed on the AUR web interface. I've asked about that in the past and have been told that certain packages will display "unknown" on the web interface if they were uploaded before the license code was added to the AUR, but that is not entirely accurate...it happens even with recent packages with the notation.

As an example, two PKGBUILDs of mine (dar and python-gnupginterface), that have been uploaded to community recently, have the exact same license line:

license=('GPL')

...yet, the dar webpage (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?do_Details=1&ID=1612) shows "License: GPL" where the python-gnupginterface page (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?do_Details=1&ID=13089) shows "License: unknown". I can't seem to nail down a pattern when it works and when it doesn't.
This task depends upon

Closed by  Loui Chang (louipc)
Thursday, 13 August 2009, 10:49 GMT
Reason for closing:  Won't implement
Additional comments about closing:  Community now uses devtools.
Comment by Ronald van Haren (pressh) - Friday, 04 January 2008, 17:34 GMT
Something similar did happen to me after moving emesene to community and updating the license field. The AUR web interface shows gpl2, whereas in fact emesene is covered by a custom:psf license, gpl, and lgpl2.

links to package in aur: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?do_Details=1&ID=7952
Comment by Simo Leone (neotuli) - Wednesday, 20 February 2008, 11:49 GMT
I think the community backend doesnt do licenses yet. I need to check that.
Comment by Loui Chang (louipc) - Monday, 23 June 2008, 17:05 GMT
Hm sounds like tupkgs isn't really updating any of the info.
Comment by Callan Barrett (wizzomafizzo) - Tuesday, 30 September 2008, 06:36 GMT
By the way I think we confirmed this a while ago. The problem is the script that adds community packages to the AUR doesn't take licenses into account since it's a relatively new field. It just needs to be parsed.

Loading...