(Sorry for the spam g-dev, I forgot to send this to dev-announce as well). ----- Forwarded message from Mark Loeser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -----
> Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 20:03:39 -0500 > From: Mark Loeser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org > Subject: [gentoo-dev] New-style virtuals LICENSE variable > User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) > > Just to bring to a wider audience the discussion that we had on bug > #140180 [1]. > > While documenting new-style virtuals for devmanual we began to discuss > what the LICENSE variable for the virtual ebuilds should contain. For > the reasons listed on the bug, we came to a conclusion that the LICENSE > variable should be empty for these ebuilds. > > A brief list of the reasons: > > * the ebuild doesn't really install anything > * the ebuild itself is already licensed under GPLv2 as is every > other ebuild in the tree > * ACCEPT_LICENSE accepts an empty LICENSE, so the virtual is > automatically accepted > * if the above were not true, we would have the fun maintainence > nightmare of having to list every license that could satisfy the > virtual in the LICENSE variable > > So long as everyone understands this, I'll go ahead and commit the new > documentation to devmanual and ask zmedico to commit the repoman change > to make sure LICENSE="" in the virtual category. > > Thanks, > > > [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=140180 > -- > Mark Loeser > email - halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org > web - http://www.halcy0n.com ----- End forwarded message -----
pgpWnxw422NtR.pgp
Description: PGP signature
