On 2012-12-30, Alexander Berntsen wrote: > All packages should have local descriptions of what the bindist > USE-flag specifically does. This should be a policy when writing > ebuilds that include it.
Agreed, as a gentoo user, I like to know why is the flag there. > The bindist USE-flag is for avoiding components in a package that > would result in non-re-distributable binary packages. The generic > global description is "Flag to enable or disable options for prebuilt > (GRP) packages (eg. due to licensing issues)". This is very vague. It > does not in any way explain the specifics of what enabling the flag > will do. And, if the global description is kept, maybe it should be rewritten so that it reads something like "Disable compilation of features or content that render the resulting binaries undistributable (due to, eg. licensing or patents)". > This means that each package should describe what it specifically > does. www-client/firefox-10.0.11 is one example that does this > properly with "Disable official Firefox branding (icons, name) which > are not binary-redistributable according to upstream." This is > perfectly descriptive. net-misc/openssh is one example that does not > have a local/specific description. > > To me, this is unacceptable. Someone who cares enough about licensing > and distribution etc. to set the bindist USE-flag, will likely care > about the specifics of the it as well. Furthermore, different people > find different things unacceptable. As an example, patent-encumbered > codec support in ffmpeg is something that might be considered > unacceptable to some. However, the very same people might not be worried > about trademark/branding-related issues, such as is the case with > Firefox. This is comparable to how some find the GPL acceptable, but > not the Artistic License 1.0, and ebuilds do indeed require the > licence -- not LICENSE="free-ish". It is indeed like LICENSE="free-ish". The description does not tell much more than "there may be some issue". And issues are different. While, with Firefox, the issue is just that you can't distribute the binaries, with patents I wonder if there are cases were you aren't even legally allowed to compile the code for your own personal use (but, well, IANAL). [...] > ffmpeg is problematic... see: > <https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=369249>. I see his point that emerge will sort of imply what does bindist do, but it requires running emerge several times with different USE flag combinations, while just writing a small explanation wouldn't hurt and would save a lot of time. -- Nuno Silva (aka njsg) http://njsg.sdf-eu.org/
