Simon Stelling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Wed, 20 Sep 2006 13:36:11 +0200:
> 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. I like the idea, but this part won't work as is, will it? Does/can portage mask dependencies when a metapackage is masked? Other than here, would that even be desired? If so, how deep does it go? Obviously we can't very well mask the glibc dependency, for instance (tho the Gentoo BSD and OSX folks might not think that sounds so unreasonable =8^). If dependencies aren't auto-masked as well, there goes your nice easy fsf-disapproved masking! -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
