On Fri, 3 Jan 2014 00:53:17 +0100
Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jan 2014, Ryan Hill wrote:
In case it's helpful here's what FOSSology[1] has to say about some
common packages that people have uploaded to their demo server.
I don't get your point here. The licenses of
On 3 January 2014 06:02, Luis Ressel ara...@aixah.de wrote:
These are good arguments. Just to be clear: Would you favor if the
default setup did this separation? I personally also like the idea, but
I'd prefer to leave the default at one distdir for *, and just make
it configurable via the
On Wed, 1 Jan 2014 23:28:54 +0100
Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
Hi,
According to GLEP 23 [1], the LICENSE variable regulates the software
that is installed on a system. There is however some ambiguity in
this: should it cover the actual files installed on the system, or
everything
On Thu, 2 Jan 2014 06:50:06 -0600
Ryan Hill dirtye...@gentoo.org wrote:
I've always believed that when it comes down to it all Gentoo basically does
is provide a link to some source code and a script to build and install it.
Unless we violate someone's license by redistributing that source
On Thu, 2 Jan 2014, Ryan Hill wrote:
I've always believed that when it comes down to it all Gentoo
basically does is provide a link to some source code and a script
to build and install it. Unless we violate someone's license by
redistributing that source then we really don't have to worry
On 3 January 2014 01:50, Ryan Hill dirtye...@gentoo.org wrote:
Maybe we could add RESTRICT=srcdist which would cause ebuilds to save
their distfiles in a separate directory controlled by PORTDIR_NODIST or
something. If the variable is unset then it's business as usual.
I was going to
On 3 January 2014 02:18, Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
Maybe we could add RESTRICT=srcdist which would cause ebuilds to
save their distfiles in a separate directory controlled by
PORTDIR_NODIST or something. If the variable is unset then it's
business as usual.
Interesting idea,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 02/01/14 07:50 AM, Ryan Hill wrote:
Maybe we could add RESTRICT=srcdist which would cause ebuilds to
save their distfiles in a separate directory controlled by
PORTDIR_NODIST or something. If the variable is unset then it's
business as
On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 11:10:54 -0500
Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
..or we could just do this, using the existing RESTRICT=mirror
that's already in ebuilds -- have a DISTDIR and a NODISTCACHEDIR,
NODISTCACHEDIR defaults to DISTDIR; if RESTRICT=mirror then
distfiles are saved to
On 3 January 2014 05:28, Luis Ressel ara...@aixah.de wrote:
@Kent: Why do you think another distinction for RESTRICT=fetch is
neccessary? If it really is, it could also be integrated into this
solution, but I don't get the point -- either you're allowed to
redistribute it, or you're not.
On Thu, 2 Jan 2014, Luis Ressel wrote:
IMHO, this is the best solution proposed so far. It doesn't need a
new USE flag duplicating information which is already in RESTRICT
(or am I missing some corner cases here?), and it doesn't bother
those who don't care about this issue with new
On Fri, 3 Jan 2014 05:37:33 +1300
Kent Fredric kentfred...@gmail.com wrote:
Fair point. I was more seeing a pattern emerging and exploring where
that might lead.
Though I figure it a useful distinction for convenience sake.
Consider if you wanted to archive some files to make a subsequent
On Thu, 2 Jan 2014 17:53:45 +0100
Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
RESTRICT is somewhat complementary to LICENSE and cannot provide as
much information. Especially, RESTRICT=mirror doesn't say under
what license the restricted pieces are, and doesn't allow for
ACCEPT_LICENSE filtering.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 02/01/14 11:28 AM, Luis Ressel wrote:
On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 11:10:54 -0500 Ian Stakenvicius
a...@gentoo.org wrote:
..or we could just do this, using the existing RESTRICT=mirror
that's already in ebuilds -- have a DISTDIR and a
On Thu, 2 Jan 2014, Luis Ressel wrote:
RESTRICT is somewhat complementary to LICENSE and cannot provide as
much information. Especially, RESTRICT=mirror doesn't say under
what license the restricted pieces are, and doesn't allow for
ACCEPT_LICENSE filtering.
But is this detailed
On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 12:13:47 -0500
Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
RESTRICT=fetch requires the user to do their own fetching; since
they're doing that, it should be pretty obvious that the distfile is
restricted somehow. Of course, they are still able to do whatever
they want, but I
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
This is not primarily about distfiles mirroring, about about giving
users a choice what distfiles they will accept on their systems (for
whatever reasons, e.g. legal or philosophical). Besides, not all users
are under the
On Thu, 2 Jan 2014, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
This is not primarily about distfiles mirroring, about about giving
s/about about/but about/
users a choice what distfiles they will accept on their systems (for
whatever reasons, e.g. legal or philosophical). Besides, not all
users are under the
On Thu, 2 Jan 2014 19:17:50 +0100
Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jan 2014, Luis Ressel wrote:
RESTRICT is somewhat complementary to LICENSE and cannot provide as
much information. Especially, RESTRICT=mirror doesn't say under
what license the restricted pieces are, and
On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 11:10:54 -0500
Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 02/01/14 07:50 AM, Ryan Hill wrote:
Maybe we could add RESTRICT=srcdist which would cause ebuilds to
save their distfiles in a separate directory controlled by
PORTDIR_NODIST or something. If the variable is
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Ryan Hill dirtye...@gentoo.org wrote:
That's only possible if we enumerate every license in every distfile we
distribute, which I don't think is a good idea. Or at least not on the
basis of a theoretic user that might not actually exist.
Why would we need to do
On Thu, 2 Jan 2014 16:20:09 -0500
Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Ryan Hill dirtye...@gentoo.org wrote:
That's only possible if we enumerate every license in every distfile we
distribute, which I don't think is a good idea. Or at least not on the
basis
On Thu, 2 Jan 2014 16:07:22 -0600
Ryan Hill dirtye...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jan 2014 16:20:09 -0500
Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
Personally I don't have any use for ACCEPT_LICENSE at all, and having
to specify the LICENSE for every single package in the tree is a lot
more
On Thu, 2 Jan 2014, Ryan Hill wrote:
In case it's helpful here's what FOSSology[1] has to say about some
common packages that people have uploaded to their demo server.
I don't get your point here. The licenses of a package have to be
checked in any case. Why would it be more complicated to
24 matches
Mail list logo
