On 18/02/15 08:40, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> I seem to recall the developer quizzes may have had (or indeed
> requested) some more information on this matter.
The test ebuild focuses on this topic.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 06:39:51 -0500
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> the policy is not "it must be Gentoo copyright", but "it must have a
> header that says Gentoo copyright even though there's no legal basis
> for it".
Correct, but I have my doubts about the allegedly wobbly legal basis. I
do vividly rec
On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 11:56:37 -0700 Christoph Junghans wrote:
> 2015-02-11 11:14 GMT-07:00 Andrew Savchenko :
> > Hello,
> >
> > attached patch adds Fortran compiler to Gentoo override rules in
> > cmake-utils.eclass the same way C/C++ compilers are added.
> >
> > This change is needed because packa
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 9:19 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> Since gentoo lacks this sort of formal signed-off policy and in fact has
> yet to move to git where it could be most easily tracked and enforced
> (let alone such a policy created and formally agreed in the first place),
> th
Pacho Ramos posted on Mon, 16 Feb 2015 14:34:50 +0100 as excerpted:
> The current policy of maintainers dropping keywords after 90 days is
> simply not applied because it leads up to that maintainer needing to
> kill himself that keyword and ALL the reverse deps keywords and, then,
> all that effo
Joshua Kinard posted on Tue, 17 Feb 2015 12:46:12 -0500 as excerpted:
> On 02/16/2015 13:01, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 11:02 AM, Joshua Kinard
>> wrote:
>>> On 02/16/2015 09:04, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>>
Maybe another approach is to just ditch
per-file copyrights ent
On 02/16/2015 13:01, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 11:02 AM, Joshua Kinard wrote:
>> On 02/16/2015 09:04, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>> I do think that moving to a cleaner policy makes a lot of sense. The
>>> problem is that doing this sort of thing right potentially involves a
>>> lot
