2011/3/28 Alexey Dokuchaev <[email protected]>: > On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 11:44:50AM +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: >> 2011/3/28 Wen Heping <[email protected]>: >> > wen 2011-03-28 03:01:32 UTC >> > >> > Modified files: >> > audio/kaudiocreator Makefile >> > audio/libmusicbrainz3 Makefile >> > audio/p5-MusicBrainz-DiscID Makefile >> > audio/picard Makefile >> > audio/py-musicbrainz2 Makefile >> > audio/xmms2 Makefile >> > Log: >> > - Bump PORTREVISION to chase the update of audio/libdiscid >> > >> > PR: ports/155977 >> > Submitted by: Jason E. Hale <[email protected]> >> > >> > Revision Changes Path >> > 1.3 +1 -1 ports/audio/kaudiocreator/Makefile >> > 1.46 +1 -0 ports/audio/libmusicbrainz3/Makefile >> > 1.2 +2 -1 ports/audio/p5-MusicBrainz-DiscID/Makefile >> > 1.27 +2 -3 ports/audio/picard/Makefile >> > 1.11 +5 -1 ports/audio/py-musicbrainz2/Makefile >> > 1.60 +2 -1 ports/audio/xmms2/Makefile >> > >> >> There is a mistake in audio/py-musicbrainz2, which is broken now >> (Missing license file for BSD in COPYING.txt), it should be >> ${WRKSRC}/COPYING.txt for LICENSE_FILE. > > Shouldn't we instead stop abusing LICENSE_FILE when it is just general > FOO license text as defined by LICENSE=FOO?
yes, we discussed this problem before. But I still think LICENSE and LICENSE_FILE could co-exist. > > In the past we've tried to avoid spamming the users' filesystems with > excessive copies of GPL; I was hoping that LICENSE framework would I hope it too. wen > finally solve the problem once and for all; however, people continue to > define LICENSE and LICENSE_FILE which usually points to verbatim license > text thereof. :-( > > ./danfe > _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
