On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 20:17:48 -0600
Ryan Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Should LICENSE changes require a revision bump?
A licence changes what get's installed, ok the files are the same, but
the meaning of having the same files is different. So I say yes.
> It kinda seems to me the answer should be yes. I don't know if any PM
> currently implements LICENSE filtering so there may not be any
> technical reason for it yet. And so I guess it comes down to a
> philosophical question - what determines the licence(s) a currently
> installed package is covered by? My thought is that this would be the
> value in /var/db/pkg/${P}/LICENSE, being the LICENSE value at install
> time, and therefore a change in the tree requires reinstallation to
> change that value.
Correct.
> On the other hand, it also seems completely ridiculous from a
> practical POV to have to wait 30 days (and waste arch team resources)
> to fix an incorrect licence on a stable package.
I think it should be sensible to make the stabilization request a lot
earlier specifying the reason behind the creation of that newer
revision in the bug and the stabilization process should be pretty much
automatic, without wasting to much time from arch teams.
On the other hand, I think it would be wise to create an explicit
exception for this case in stabilization rules and to allow the uploader
of the corrected ebuild to keep the same KEYWORDS instead of
downgrading them to unstable.
Kindest regards,
Yuri.
