Le 06/09/2009 02:34, Thomas Anderson a écrit :
Ciaran's really not making homework up for gentoo. Why, remi stated himself that
we have homework to do(and we sometimes don't do that homework)
I did, but I also stated upstream might have some homework to do
themselves. Here's a list of things t
On Sat, Sep 05, 2009 at 04:03:25PM +0200, Maciej Mrozowski wrote:
> On Friday 04 of September 2009 22:08:02 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 22:04:46 +0200
>
> > R?mi Cardona wrote:
> > > Having tools to manipulate those variables is very misleading since
> > > users will (rightfull
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> IMHO the main disadvantage is that ebuilds would have to be converted
> to EAPI-4 for this,
Why do they _have_ to? I understand that it's optional and that we can
take time with it until a new license (e.g. GPL-4) arrives.
Also, scripts/tools can help with the transition.
Mounir Lamouri wrote:
> Zac Medico wrote:
>> Sebastian Pipping wrote:
>>
>>> I propose support for license groups in ebuilds then, I guess.
>>>
>> That seems like a reasonable solution. So, an ebuild can do
>> something like LICENSE="@GPL-2+" and that will expand to whatever
>> the definiti
> On Sat, 05 Sep 2009, Mounir Lamouri wrote:
> I suppose adding group license support in ebuilds will fix the problem
> too. But I see a few disadvantages like:
> - new behavior for @ operator: it will not only expand a group but also
> adding a || operator (only for LICENSE)
> - devs will h
Zac Medico wrote:
> Sebastian Pipping wrote:
>
>> I propose support for license groups in ebuilds then, I guess.
>>
> That seems like a reasonable solution. So, an ebuild can do
> something like LICENSE="@GPL-2+" and that will expand to whatever
> the definition of the GPL-2+ license group
On Sat, 5 Sep 2009 16:03:25 +0200
Maciej Mrozowski wrote:
> > Why not use EAPI 4 to make sure people have done that homework then?
>
> Because it won't make *upstream* do their homework.
If upstream won't tell you the licence under which something is
distributed, how does Gentoo know whether it'
On Friday 04 of September 2009 22:08:02 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> 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 n
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Fri, 04 Sep 2009, Zac Medico wrote:
>>> I propose support for license groups in ebuilds then, I guess.
>
>> That seems like a reasonable solution. So, an ebuild can do
>> something like LICENSE="@GPL-2+" and that will expand to whatever
>> the definition of the GPL-
Le 05/09/2009 11:25, Duncan a écrit :
[...]
This is off-topic for gentoo-dev. Please continue this discussion in
private.
Thanks
Rémi
> On Fri, 04 Sep 2009, Zac Medico wrote:
>> I propose support for license groups in ebuilds then, I guess.
> That seems like a reasonable solution. So, an ebuild can do
> something like LICENSE="@GPL-2+" and that will expand to whatever
> the definition of the GPL-2+ license group happens to b
Nikos Chantziaras posted on Sat, 05 Sep 2009 02:19:12 +0300 as excerpted:
> On 09/05/2009 01:24 AM, Robert Bradbury wrote:
>>
>> Is gnash still under development (as an open source alternative to
>> Adobe flash)?
TTBOMK [1], gnash is now a GNU sponsored project, one I believe they are
actually p
Zac Medico posted on Fri, 04 Sep 2009 18:06:09 -0700 as excerpted:
> That seems like a reasonable solution. So, an ebuild can do something
> like LICENSE="@GPL-2+" and that will expand to whatever the definition
> of the GPL-2+ license group happens to be. When a new version of GPL
> license comes
13 matches
Mail list logo
