openwrt
treewide: Add missing PKG_MAINTAINER
The luci-app-bcp38 had a maintainer from luci-app-acme and that looks like a copy-paste error. So it's maintainer was changed to an author @danrl
Daniel F. Dickinson changed email address to [email protected]
luci-all-lxl has a maintainer Petar Koretic [email protected] but there is no corresponding GitHub account. So Dirk Brenken was added as a second maintainer: he answered on an issue of the app.
When maintainer wasn't set the initial author was used, or most contributor or Jo-Philipp Wich as a default.
The luci-app-bcp38 had a maintainer from luci-app-acme and that looks like a copy-paste error. So it's maintainer was changed to an author @danrl
The bcp38 maintainer change is wrong. @tohojo is the author and maintainer of that app ( as well as the acme that you also refer) You were probably misled by the 7-year ago move from packages repo, if you did not follow the whole commit and PR chain.
https://github.com/openwrt/packages/pull/4013
https://github.com/openwrt/packages/commits/c8add3368b8bd7767bbd540539dcd4a97112b4e1/net/luci-app-bcp38/Makefile
@hnyman thank you for the clarification. Reverted that change.
@feckert I added missed PKG_LICENSE. Please review last two commits.
There is a problem that the example app has a GPLv2 copyright and when a new app is created it's copied too. This creates a problem if an author didn't specified the PKG_LICENSE directly.
E.g. for the luci-app-usteer I had to specify the PKG_LICENSE=GPL-2.0 but I'm pretty sure that its author @Ramon00 would be fine with Apache-2.0. @Ramon00 could you please clarify which license you used for your app? Can I set it to the Apache-2.0 that most of Luci code use?
To avoid such problems I would like to propose to change the luci-app-example to Apache-2.0
One comment to the syntax: I think that in case of duplicate maintainers, the list should be comma-separated so that it would be acceptable to email clients as recipients list.
Agreed. Comma simplest. Although it does not yet help (multiple authors case) the new pkg search that @aparcar made.
in case of duplicate maintainers, the list should be comma-separate
From what I saw in all places maintainers are separated by a new line OR by a comma if written in one line. I just followed the common style. If we want to separate by a coma and new line then we should apply the same style for all makefiles. We can do that in a separate PR.
The PR can be merged as is. If anything should be changed please let me know and I'll update the PR
@hnyman do you have any further comments?
My previous comment still stands: in the multiple maintainer case, the list is meant to be comma-separated for easier use with mail clients (e.g. the uscan notification service for maintainers about upgraded upstream packages)
That is pretty clearly shown that way in majority of Makefile in the packages feed: https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Aopenwrt%2Fpackages%20PKG_MAINTAINER%20%2C&type=code
I am also doubtful about changing from GPL2 to Apache without explicit consent from the author.
(there are also some unrelated changes, like changing a few mail addresses in the copyrights for formerly active people)
@hnyman thank you, I added the commas in a separate commit.
changing from GPL2 to Apache without explicit consent from the author
For each such change I checked the license declared in file headers inside. We have the luci-example-app that has the GPLv2 and this was copied without noticing.
some unrelated changes, like changing a few mail addresses in the copyrights
Only one email was changed from [email protected] to [email protected] which is a public email on his github. The old domain daniel.thecshore.com doesn't have MX records. The change is minor and I made it when looked for his github account for the CODEOWNERS.
So from my side everything looks fine now.
Looks largely OK - although my p910nd rewrite seemed to acquire jow as a maintainer. Logic? Not against it - just want to understand the decision making here.
LICENSE changes which specifically point to the main luci repo license are explicit and OK.
When I created the codeowners and filled missed maintainers you didn't rewrote it yet. Then I added you and kept jow.
2 мая 2024 г. 02:16:31 Paul Donald @.***>:
Looks largely OK - although my p910nd rewrite seemed to acquire jow as a maintainer. Logic? Not against it - just want to understand the decision making here.
LICENSE changes which specifically point to the main luci repo license are explicit and OK.
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub[https://github.com/openwrt/luci/pull/7023#issuecomment-2089275687], or unsubscribe[https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AADFODUX4FMVACTKKKR5TUTZAFZU7AVCNFSM6AAAAABFFU3MHGVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDAOBZGI3TKNRYG4]. You are receiving this because you were mentioned. [Отслеживающее изображение][https://github.com/notifications/beacon/AADFODRYIU6NN4FS3MUZBXDZAFZU7A5CNFSM6AAAAABFFU3MHGWGG33NNVSW45C7OR4XAZNMJFZXG5LFINXW23LFNZ2KUY3PNVWWK3TUL5UWJTT4Q7ISO.gif]