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]
-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)
-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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
-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
13 matches
Mail list logo
