[kerbal] update to v2024.11.1

[WentsingNee]

• Changes comply with the maintainer guide.
• SHA512s are updated for each updated download.
• The "supports" clause reflects platforms that may be fixed by this new version.
• Any fixed CI baseline entries are removed from that file.
• Any patches that are no longer applied are deleted from the port's directory.
• The version database is fixed by rerunning ./vcpkg x-add-version --all and committing the result.
• Only one version is added to each modified port's versions file.

[WentsingNee]

@jimwang118 should I squash the second commit into the first one?

[jimwang118]

@jimwang118 should I squash the second commit into the first one?

You need to run the command: ./vcpkg x-add-version {portname} --overwrite-version, and then submit the regenerated kerbal.json file.

[WentsingNee]

@jimwang118 should I squash the second commit into the first one?

You need to run the command: ./vcpkg x-add-version {portname} --overwrite-version, and then submit the regenerated kerbal.json file.

done

[BillyONeal]

Can you explain where the -or-later is documented? The LICENSE does not say that.

[WentsingNee]

Well, this change is suggested by @jimwang118 during his review. Actually, I didn't change my project's LICENSE these days.

[WentsingNee]

#42307 (comment)

[WentsingNee]

I didn't focus and track the policy published by the vcpkg official so I also don't understand. Whether you have updated the policy related to the LICENSE in pursuit of the compatibility?

[jimwang118]

There is no separate LGPL-3.0 license in the website SPDX-license-list where we are verifying the license, so it is changed to LGPL-3.0-or-later.

[dg0yt]

Either it is LGPL-3.0-or-later or it is LGPL-3.0-only. If we do not know exactly, the deprecated fuzzy LGPL-3.0 might be the best fit!

[BillyONeal]

@WentsingNee Ah, I'm sorry, I didn't notice that you are upstream! In that case, I agree with @dg0yt that the deprecated fuzzy one should remain. I would suggest that, as the upstream maintainer, you clarify in your own project's documentation which you mean, and we'll update the license expression when we ingest that update. However, we don't need that to happen to take this update. Thanks!

[BillyONeal]

I reverted the license field edit and set auto merge, I assumed @WentsingNee is happy with that given that their initial PR did not contain that change.