Christian Faulhammer wrote: > Alexis Ballier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> > While we are not distributing binaries, I could easily add a >> > USE flag to enable it; the user compiles it himself, so it is all >> > fine. But now regard the existence of binary hosts, are they >> > distributions of then illegal binaries? Definitely. IIRC distribution within an organisation doesn't count as distribution under the GPL but I am not a lawyer. (Nor do I like that acronym: my eyeballs survive reading it tho ;) Any public binhost like tinderbox[1] would be unable to make binaries available. >> isn't bindist useflag made for this purpose ? > > Great. Thanks...so what is common practice? Should the ebuild die, > telling people a feature will not be included or just exclude it with > an ewarn only? > Dunno what common practice is, but from a user perspective, it's much better if the binhost compiles without the feature than dies altogether. An ewarn/elog about bindist is sufficient for any competent admin (and newbs can search site:forums.gentoo.org or whinge on IRC, where they shall be gently enlightened ;)
[1] http://tinderbox.dev.gentoo.org/html/default-linux/ -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
