[gentoo-dev] GLEP 52 - GLEP 23 revisited
Hello all, I would like you to share your comments on the attached GLEP with me. Thanks in advance! -- Kind Regards, Simon Stelling Gentoo/AMD64 developer GLEP: 52 Title: License Managment in Portage Version: $Revision: $ Last-Modified: $Date: $ Author: Simon Stelling [EMAIL PROTECTED] Status: Draft Type: Standards Track Content-Type: text/x-rst Created: 20-Sep-2006 Post-History: 20-Sep-2006 Abstract GLEP 23 [1]_ was brought into existance 31 May 2003 to help users that do not want to implicitly accept any license. Three and a half years later, it is still not implemented. This GLEP aims at exactly the same target as GLEP 23, but with a different technical approach. Credits === The ideas found in this GLEP originate from or are heavily influenced by Iván Pérez DomÃnguez's and other people's comments on bug 17367 [2]_. Motivation == GLEP 23 has failed to get implemented. This GLEP proposes a quick and easy, yet elegant way to enhance portage's license handling. Specification = If a certain package requires to - implicitly or explicitly - accept licenses, it obviously depends upon acceptance of said licenses. The set of licenses a package depends on may vary, e.g. on the selected USE flags. Dependencies on specific licenses should be treated no different than dependencies on other packages, i.e. they should be defined using ``[R,]DEPEND`` syntax. Every license which a package in the portage tree depends on gets a package in the ``txt-licenses/`` category. Its ebuild must install the license text to ``/usr/shared/licenses/``. The initial version shall be 1 if there is no version specified. There will also be a bunch of meta-packages: At least * ``txt-licenses/osi-disapproved-licenses``, * ``txt-licenses/fsf-disapproved-licenses``, and * ``txt-licenses/gpl-incompatible-licenses`` should exist and be a dependency of all licenses that possess the respective attribute. Users can then assure that they do not implicitly agree with a license they would not agree with explicitly by masking the license's package. If they only want to accept packages that are e.g. approved by the FSF, they can simply mask the ``txt-licenses/fsf-disapproved`` package. Licenses that need to be explicitly accepted before installation of a package (and only these) should be package.masked by default with a header like the following: :: # Simon Stelling [EMAIL PROTECTED] (20 Sep 2006) # This license needs to be agreed on explicitly to be considered # legally binding. # By unmasking and installing the package you agree with its terms. txt-licenses/wierd-license As a lot of licenses have the same name as the packages that use it, the license's package name should contain a ``-license`` appendix. The ``LICENSE`` variable currently used in ebuilds should be kept. However, it should no longer use DEPEND syntax (e.g. || ( )) but a simple list of license names. This is useful for package indexes like packages.gentoo.org and simple What license does this package use? queries. Backwards Compatibility === For a reasonable amount of time, ``repoman`` should simply warn if there is not at least one dependency to a license package. New ebuilds should make use of the package-based system. Once (almost) all ebuilds are ported to the new system, repoman should consider the lack of a license dependency an error. References == .. [1] GLEP 23 http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0023.html .. [2] Gentoo Bug 17367 http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17367 Copyright = This document has been placed in the public domain.
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 52 - GLEP 23 revisited
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Simon Stelling wrote: Hello all, I would like you to share your comments on the attached GLEP with me. Thanks in advance! snip I think it is over engineering of a non-issue. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFFET2j1c+EtXTHkJcRAladAJ9r8VK6WUzjv9Pnextkh8b4N6xPFQCfX+pW 7EBxySyIomhsSDEL7noSFig= =6LAs -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 52 - GLEP 23 revisited
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Steev Klimaszewski wrote: Simon Stelling wrote: Hello all, I would like you to share your comments on the attached GLEP with me. Thanks in advance! snip I think it is over engineering of a non-issue. And to expand, per blubb's request, all you are doing is moving /usr/portage/licenses out somewhere else on the filesystem. Now instead of one file per license, I need a minimum of 5 - the license ebuild, metadata, changelog, manifest and digest -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFFEUBP1c+EtXTHkJcRAjreAJ0Wa1Jj5kmfd4iprrDUTDUbqORm8gCfbyV1 Ee8/WXmCWpMES+9qHjjUxWs= =IcFw -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 52 - GLEP 23 revisited
Steev Klimaszewski wrote: I think it is over engineering of a non-issue. Which non-issue in particular? -- Kind Regards, Simon Stelling Gentoo/AMD64 developer -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 52 - GLEP 23 revisited
Krzysiek Pawlik wrote: # Simon Stelling [EMAIL PROTECTED] (20 Sep 2006) # This license needs to be agreed on explicitly to be considered # legally binding. # By unmasking and installing the package you agree with its terms. txt-licenses/wierd-license Why not make the ebuild ask for confirmation? Would work with versioned licenses (for example: txt-licenses/wierd-license-2.1 and txt-licenses/wierd-license-2.999 - both would require ACK). Breaks portage in a way it's interactive, but it's already happening in few ebuilds (eutils.eclass::check_license()). Even assuming you have multiple versions of such a license, the user can still unmask specific versions in case he really agrees with one version but not another. If he unmasks just the package, then you can take that as a he's fine with all of them. The reasoning for doing it this way is that merges should really be non-interactive wherever possible. Sure, there are a few exeptions, but they should be kept as rarely as possible, and avoiding it IS possible in this case. -- Kind Regards, Simon Stelling Gentoo/AMD64 developer -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 52 - GLEP 23 revisited
On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 13:36 +0200, Simon Stelling wrote: Every license which a package in the portage tree depends on gets a package in the ``txt-licenses/`` category. Its ebuild must install the license text to ``/usr/shared/licenses/``. The initial version shall be 1 if there is no version specified. This doesn't make sense to me. I have a copy of every license used in the portage tree already in /usr/portage/licenses - why dup that again? We already have an existing LICENSE keywording in the ebuilds, why not just focus on patching portage to allow a make.conf variable for allowed licenses and block based on that? -- -o()o-- Michael Cummings |#gentoo-dev, #gentoo-perl Gentoo Perl Dev|on irc.freenode.net Gentoo/SPARC Gentoo/AMD64 GPG: 0543 6FA3 5F82 3A76 3BF7 8323 AB5C ED4E 9E7F 4E2E -o()o-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 52 - GLEP 23 revisited
Simon Stelling wrote: GLEP: 52 I don't like it: too complex, glep 23 is fine. lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 52 - GLEP 23 revisited
Michael Cummings wrote: This doesn't make sense to me. I have a copy of every license used in the portage tree already in /usr/portage/licenses - why dup that again? We already have an existing LICENSE keywording in the ebuilds, why not just focus on patching portage to allow a make.conf variable for allowed licenses and block based on that? +1 -- Vlastimil Babka (Caster) Gentoo/Java -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 52 - GLEP 23 revisited
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 07:36, Simon Stelling wrote: I would like you to share your comments on the attached GLEP with me. why not just implement GLEP 23 -mike pgpZSKauYbIhF.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 52 - GLEP 23 revisited
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 13:36:11 +0200 Simon Stelling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would like you to share your comments on the attached GLEP with me. It seems to me to be an attempt to move what is obviously the package manager's job into the tree, and making it far more complex than it needs to be in the process. The necessary metadata is already in ebuilds, and has even been changed to a more depend-like syntax for exactly the purpose of making license handling easier; why duplicate it in so many places? The necessary package manager support isn't even all that difficult, so it's not yet been implemented seems like a poor excuse for offloading the work onto every single developer instead. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 52 - GLEP 23 revisited
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 10:05:00 -0400 Michael Cummings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 13:36 +0200, Simon Stelling wrote: Every license which a package in the portage tree depends on gets a package in the ``txt-licenses/`` category. Its ebuild must install the license text to ``/usr/shared/licenses/``. The initial version shall be 1 if there is no version specified. This doesn't make sense to me. I have a copy of every license used in the portage tree already in /usr/portage/licenses - why dup that again? Plus the copies in /usr/share/doc. We already have an existing LICENSE keywording in the ebuilds, why not just focus on patching portage to allow a make.conf variable for allowed licenses and block based on that? Sounds good enough to me. Perhaps two variables; ALLOW_LICENSES and DENY_LICENSES (with wildcard support). -- Kevin F. Quinn signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 52 - GLEP 23 revisited
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 12:43, Kevin F. Quinn wrote: Michael Cummings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We already have an existing LICENSE keywording in the ebuilds, why not just focus on patching portage to allow a make.conf variable for allowed licenses and block based on that? Sounds good enough to me. Perhaps two variables; ALLOW_LICENSES and DENY_LICENSES (with wildcard support). it's called ACCEPT_LICENSES and it's outlined in GLEP 23 -mike pgp3ftFgsrUeC.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 52 - GLEP 23 revisited
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Simon Stelling wrote: Hello all, I would like you to share your comments on the attached GLEP with me. Thanks in advance! While this has a novel approach to the problem (at least, I haven't seen anything else that tries to solve the LICENSE issue this way), the existing GLEP 23 really does have a much simpler solution. And in this case, the KISS principle should apply. Rather than adding more stuff to ebuilds or multiple new directories to the user's system, it's a lot easier to just use existing LICENSE info and a single line in make.conf to specify what's allowed. 'Course, easier and simpler still don't mean that it's been done yet. *shrug* IIRC, the other two alternative package managers have implemented it in some form -- why not take a look at how they did it to see if there are any good technical solutions (or ideas) present. Or maybe offer a bounty of some sort to the first person that comes up with the patch for Portage. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFEXuSrsJQqN81j74RAmm5AJ938b0VYR7cylytoJGY3gBi7Uiy7QCgiJjq 79oDXSqIrYvL/o7SWxcmotA= =AeFg -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
