On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 3:24 PM, Ian Stakenvicius <a...@gentoo.org> wrote: > IUSE="bindist" tends to be for adjusting a particular package so that > it either is generic and CAN be binary-distributable, or will build as > upstream intended (with, for instance, upstream branding) and > therefore is not. Right?
Correct. > > So, in essence, the use flag can allow for an exception of a 'bindist' > LICENSE. Would it make more sense then to have LICENSE= contents > controlled conditionally? ie: > I'm not sure if this is really necessary. If a user doesn't want to accidentally install something that isn't redistributable they can start with ACCEPT_LICENSE=@BINARY-REDISTRIBUTABLE, which already exists. Then they can augment that by manually overriding it for packages where they've decided they're not impacted, or where they're using USE=-bindist. There are really only a small number of situations where this will happen. I'm not sure if we need to implement conditional licensing with a pseudo-license on top of that just to cover them. The license itself doesn't actually change when you USE -bindist - you're simply complying with it. Rich
