Page MenuHomeFreeBSD

packages: Add descriptions for all packages
ClosedPublic

Authored by ivy on Tue, Sep 23, 12:54 PM.
Tags
None
Referenced Files
Unknown Object (File)
Sun, Sep 28, 9:54 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Sun, Sep 28, 9:54 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Fri, Sep 26, 2:26 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Fri, Sep 26, 2:26 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Wed, Sep 24, 2:05 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Tue, Sep 23, 8:53 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Tue, Sep 23, 8:25 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Tue, Sep 23, 8:19 PM

Details

Summary

Provide at least a basic description of every package we build. Where
possible, the description is taken from a relevant manpage; when there
was no suitable text in the manpage, I wrote a new description.

Since the UCL files now contain a significant amount of English
prose which is almost certainly subject to copyright in at least
some jurisdictions, add a copyright header to every file. Where
the text was taken from a manpage, the copyright and license are
also taken from the manpage. A few files don't have copyright
headers added because the origin of the text is unclear, or because
the files were written by someone else.

Remove some orphaned UCL files for packages we no longer ship, and
while here, add a few missing dependencies.

Diff Detail

Repository
rG FreeBSD src repository
Lint
Lint Skipped
Unit
Tests Skipped
Build Status
Buildable 67255
Build 64138: arc lint + arc unit

Event Timeline

ivy requested review of this revision.Tue, Sep 23, 12:54 PM
bapt added a subscriber: bapt.

I love this!

release/packages/ucl/acpi.ucl
20

I am not sure this is expected in this review, but this seems fine to me anyway

This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Tue, Sep 23, 1:02 PM

work around a UCL parsing issue caused by the license formatting in kyua-all.ucl

This revision now requires review to proceed.Tue, Sep 23, 1:23 PM
release/packages/ucl/acpi.ucl
20

i added a couple of dependencies i noticed were missing while i was examining the UCL, i could split those out into another review.

i could split those out into another review.

I think that's a good idea (or just commit them separately first). I'd suggest the same with the license blocks (and, probably just the SPDX tag and copyright statement; we don't need to duplicate the license text in each file.

remove dependency changes, which will reappear in another review

on copyright headers: for files i create myself, my preference is to always
include the full copyright header. the reason for that is i'm not convinced an
"SPDX-License-Identifier" by itself would be interpreted by courts in every
jurisdiction in the world as actually releasing the file under that license,
and it's important to me that my work is freely available.

for the files i didn't write, most of them are 2- or 3-clause BSD, and the BSD
license says:

Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

so legally, i don't believe i'm allowed to remove the BSD license header from
those copyrighted works.

This revision was not accepted when it landed; it landed in state Needs Review.Wed, Sep 24, 6:55 PM
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.