-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 All, I just became aware of [1] today.
Several months ago, after a conversation with upstream and a couple other devs, I decided to remove the RESTRICT="mirror fetch" parts. Upstream didn't appear worried about the mirroring, but rather that they wanted people to accept their license. So I left in RESTRICT="bindist" and the ewarn about the license. Given what I read on that bug today, would it be better if I went back to RESTRICT="mirror fetch"? Or should I perhaps be doing something entirely different? Perhaps make it so that the user has to add that license to package.license? @Trustees: Any thoughts? I didn't mean to step on any toes, I just hadn't spotted that old bug until today. Regards, [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=241650 - -- Dane Smith (c1pher) Gentoo Linux Developer -- QA / Crypto / Sunrise / x86 RSA Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?search=0x0C2E1531&op=index -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJNtXUdAAoJEEsurZwMLhUxufYP/jfvjNCU27PG5cJzZ1z5Clmy 9C7c5xTYarWGt54/iyvpwOGt2OL1dRnKp9sKYelfJrvOzhna3zQbOcbfXyUCNcvS amKvAle4CnLTNMGIDdRiTESNKYrmDf0ih1m+4iHQe84DbzPtwl4QhKHUrS7sSHHH 7phtwzXsD2/Z9/Ip8BQLuWtmCjc0klLMksg5U9YCEpJlQeZiBMkboc7O8fH/LHqe TRQDZRkJhjV6XNBcR0HYZ+VJdtjMEu/Hpy3X8uDoyjnxV4+nBVRgQQ7ZjAqAlgDh qX2Egg2U5b394+rK2gMe1nwA4mOZ6/eGs1vUrAfMwJf8C/EmwkFr7bFlaqTOIspm Mq1w0ph8g4PAj8WTS7wL7eFu0Ajheprsn8487ny5ET7c2HCoaWgQThzjbigf+c/9 j2THMS4bvvhBkBk32wVFKASJAa3YIGCNUG8GyhW6Z5NZxIogqlhEaENKn+wlWe5f ocWlR0IeX3K28prifDOIDpftqkpQCs0KgpaAJdDsizHHKWa1fn9Ul68FzR29wwZe ks4eBhmMXy50QjoC0XiOppEYpu+MByeJOJpNntXMwpfXlqmjROzvyfchbTkB4ebo 1QJR4ZbDlm1eaWs9om1MHCBhoxEX7E8Q8cOrKkQhBGin2jU/5iwxarXTSk/+YDIh hmH2ZZQk3eTWXBjNY6ET =Zpb9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
