Sebastian Pipping wrote:
>> However, a
>> group will not add the information in the ebuild. In other words, I will
>> have GPL-2 and GPL-3 with GPL-2+ in ACCEPT_LICENSE but I will not have
>> GPL-2+ packages if i set only GPL-3 in ACCEPT_LICENSE.
>
> I propose support for license groups in ebuilds
On 09/05/2009 01:24 AM, Robert Bradbury wrote:
I've used the gnash plugin because earlier Flash releases were so
"problematic" (crashing Flash would generally crash Firefox). But
generally migrated away from Flash as it seemed to become more and
more of an advertising distribution medium that on
I've used the gnash plugin because earlier Flash releases were so
"problematic" (crashing Flash would generally crash Firefox). But
generally migrated away from Flash as it seemed to become more and
more of an advertising distribution medium that one had no user
control over (this is a subjective
Le vendredi 04 septembre 2009 à 22:56 +0200, Rémi Cardona a écrit :
> Le 04/09/2009 22:41, Andrew John Hughes a écrit :
> > So there'll be no Free Flash support in Gentoo any more?
> > I hope someone will pick this up, this is a high priority FSF project after
> > all.
>
> There's media-libs/swfd
Mounir Lamouri wrote:
>> However I do notice that "GPL-2+" could make things easier.
>> Why not introduce a license group for it like @GPL-2+ or so, instead?
>> That would be transparent and use existing means.
>>
> I don't understand where the black magic is.
It would be in the implementation
Le 04/09/2009 22:41, Andrew John Hughes a écrit :
So there'll be no Free Flash support in Gentoo any more?
I hope someone will pick this up, this is a high priority FSF project after all.
There's media-libs/swfdec that's still offically maintained by the Gnome
herd.
As far as gnash is concer
# Rémi Cardona (04 Sep 2009)
# Masked for removal in 60 days, old and unmaintained in Gentoo
# Uses removed VIDEO_CARDS flag (see bug #282981)
www-plugins/gnash
Cheers,
Rémi
On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 22:04:46 +0200
Rémi Cardona wrote:
> Having tools to manipulate those variables is very misleading since
> users will (rightfully) assume that we've done our homework and that
> upstream did too.
Why not use EAPI 4 to make sure people have done that homework then?
--
Ciara
Le 04/09/2009 20:52, David Leverton a écrit :
Is that really a problem?
To me, it's not. :)
I admit to not being around for the original design
decisions, but I would assume that the purpose of having LICENSE in ebuilds
is to tell users what licence the package is under (whether or not it's
On Friday 04 September 2009 16:01:41 Rémi Cardona wrote:
> For instance, I'm still working on migrating all the X11 packages to the
> "MIT" license (mainly for cleaning purposes), but in fact, each and
> every package should have its own license file (like today) because the
> MIT license requires
Le 03/09/2009 23:27, Mounir Lamouri a écrit :
But the content of the license is the same. That only means you can use
a newer one.
I mean we do not need a new license file for that. It's up to upstream
to write somewhere if it's GPL-2 or GPL-2+, am I right ?
Yes, that's for upstream to figure o
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Mounir Lamouri wrote:
> It's even worst when we try to use ACCEPT_LICENSE to have a free
> operating system.
FWIW: Given the state of ebuilds, I think this should never be
attempted unless the user knows it may not be accurate[1]. We should
not attempt to guarante
On 09/04/2009 09:14 AM, Justin wrote:
Nikos Chantziaras schrieb:
This is a heads-up to all devs who provide/maintain live ebuilds of
projects hosted on SourceForge. Live ebuilds won't work anymore.
EGIT_REPO_URI has to updated on all ebuilds. Appending "/projectname"
should be enough (for exam
13 matches
Mail list logo
