Petteri R??ty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Petteri R??ty wrote: > > R Hill wrote: > >>Daniel Ahlberg wrote: > >>>* if ebuild installs COPYING and/or INSTALL into doc. > >> > >>Is this actually important? There are a hell of a lot of ebuilds that fail > >>under this rule. I'd like to start filing patches for some of the packages > >>in > >>this list so I'm interested in knowing what's worth fixing and what's being > >>pedantic. > > > > Not a blocker but just useless. Filing patches for ebuilds doing this is > > greatly appreciated by at least me. > > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=113680 > > So is there a policy about [not] installing the COPYING or LICENSE files > already? If there isn't one, I propose we make a decision about this to > have uniform behaviour across the tree.
You're going to be hard-pressed to get any kind of consensus on this issue. Many dev seems to feel that the license belongs there. In some cases the COPYING, LICENSE, and/or INSTALL files contain, not boilerplate drivel, but actually unique, useful information. Certainly there could be value in leaving out _yet_another_ copy of the GPL and the banal INSTALL, but even that wouldn't justify a universal ban on certain file names. -- In the depths of my heart, I can't help being convinced that my fellow men, with a few exceptions, are worthless. -- Sigmund Freud
pgpPO0zVfXDXT.pgp
Description: PGP signature
