Re: [PATCH] gnu-maintenance: Improve 'official-gnu-packages'; add related procedures.

[Nikita Karetnikov]

> I'll ask Karl about this.

-------------------- Start of forwarded message --------------------
    While we are at it, I also noticed that the "note" field is repeated
    (package: cobol).

True.

    "(It’s surprising that there’s no ‘license’ field in the file.)"
    Could you explain why?

Simple -- it's never been needed.  That is, rms has never asked me a
question that required sorting by license.  All software in GNU is
GPL-compatible by definition.  As you've seen, the most I've needed is
an indication of GPLv3 status, where I tossed some other random license
information as I found it.

    Also, why do you use "doc-url: none"?

As a human, I've found it is much more reliable to have an explicit
doc-url field for every package.  Before I started using doc-url: none, 
I was always unsure as to whether the lack of the field meant there
really was no explicit doc page, or whether I hadn't looked for one yet.
So I'm not going to get rid of it.

When I create the table for www.gnu.org/manual (file allgnupkgs.html),
obviously I don't actually put in a link to "none".  I just replace it
with another link to the home page, since there's nothing better.

Feel free to forward all this to whatever list.  Also feel free to start
cc-ing the list in the first place :).

BTW, if you ever find any updates to the data or needed, or have
suggestions for the categories and/or descriptions and/or whatever,
please let me know.  There's nothing set in stone about any of it --
it's just the best I could do or find.
-------------------- End of forwarded message --------------------

pgpA5VUuFo8CY.pgp
Description: PGP signature