Le 06/09/2009 02:34, Thomas Anderson a écrit :
Ciaran's really not making homework up for gentoo. Why, remi stated himself that
we have homework to do(and we sometimes don't do that homework)
I did, but I also stated upstream might have some homework to do
themselves. Here's a list of things
Zac Medico posted on Fri, 04 Sep 2009 18:06:09 -0700 as excerpted:
That seems like a reasonable solution. So, an ebuild can do something
like LICENSE=@GPL-2+ and that will expand to whatever the definition
of the GPL-2+ license group happens to be. When a new version of GPL
license comes out,
On Friday 04 of September 2009 22:08:02 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 22:04:46 +0200
Rémi Cardona r...@gentoo.org wrote:
Having tools to manipulate those variables is very misleading since
users will (rightfully) assume that we've done our homework and that
upstream did too.
On Sat, 5 Sep 2009 16:03:25 +0200
Maciej Mrozowski reave...@poczta.fm wrote:
Why not use EAPI 4 to make sure people have done that homework then?
Because it won't make *upstream* do their homework.
If upstream won't tell you the licence under which something is
distributed, how does Gentoo
On Sat, Sep 05, 2009 at 04:03:25PM +0200, Maciej Mrozowski wrote:
On Friday 04 of September 2009 22:08:02 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 22:04:46 +0200
R?mi Cardona r...@gentoo.org wrote:
Having tools to manipulate those variables is very misleading since
users will
Le 03/09/2009 23:27, Mounir Lamouri a écrit :
But the content of the license is the same. That only means you can use
a newer one.
I mean we do not need a new license file for that. It's up to upstream
to write somewhere if it's GPL-2 or GPL-2+, am I right ?
Yes, that's for upstream to figure
On Friday 04 September 2009 16:01:41 Rémi Cardona wrote:
For instance, I'm still working on migrating all the X11 packages to the
MIT license (mainly for cleaning purposes), but in fact, each and
every package should have its own license file (like today) because the
MIT license requires that
Le 04/09/2009 20:52, David Leverton a écrit :
Is that really a problem?
To me, it's not. :)
I admit to not being around for the original design
decisions, but I would assume that the purpose of having LICENSE in ebuilds
is to tell users what licence the package is under (whether or not it's
On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 22:04:46 +0200
Rémi Cardona r...@gentoo.org wrote:
Having tools to manipulate those variables is very misleading since
users will (rightfully) assume that we've done our homework and that
upstream did too.
Why not use EAPI 4 to make sure people have done that homework
Duncan wrote:
Sebastian Pipping posted on Tue, 01 Sep 2009 04:21:49 +0200 as excerpted:
However I do notice that GPL-2+ could make things easier. Why not
introduce a license group for it like @GPL-2+ or so, instead? That would
be transparent and use existing means.
I've always
Le 03/09/2009 23:10, Mounir Lamouri a écrit :
Duncan wrote:
Sebastian Pipping posted on Tue, 01 Sep 2009 04:21:49 +0200 as excerpted:
However I do notice that GPL-2+ could make things easier. Why not
introduce a license group for it like @GPL-2+ or so, instead? That would
be transparent and
Rémi Cardona wrote:
Le 03/09/2009 23:10, Mounir Lamouri a écrit :
Duncan wrote:
Sebastian Pipping posted on Tue, 01 Sep 2009 04:21:49 +0200 as
excerpted:
However I do notice that GPL-2+ could make things easier. Why not
introduce a license group for it like @GPL-2+ or so, instead? That
Mounir Lamouri posted on Thu, 03 Sep 2009 23:27:34 +0200 as excerpted:
Rémi Cardona wrote:
Mounir Lamouri a écrit :
Duncan wrote:
Sebastian Pipping posted:
However I do notice that GPL-2+ could make things easier. Why not
introduce a license group for it like @GPL-2+
I've always thought
Sebastian Pipping posted on Tue, 01 Sep 2009 04:21:49 +0200 as excerpted:
However I do notice that GPL-2+ could make things easier. Why not
introduce a license group for it like @GPL-2+ or so, instead? That would
be transparent and use existing means.
I've always thought Gentoo needed plus
14 matches
Mail list logo
