On Sat, 2019-09-21 at 17:45 -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 09:57:25PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Sat, 2019-09-21 at 14:26 -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
> > > On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 09:17:53PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Sat, 21 Sep 2019, Michał Gór
On Sat, 2019-09-21 at 17:10 -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
> This eclass adds a src_unpack function that supports the EGO_VENDOR
> variable for vendoring modules.
> ---
> eclass/go-module-vendor.eclass | 133 +
> 1 file changed, 133 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644
On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 4:46 PM Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 22 Sep 2019, Matt Turner wrote:
>
> > An idea to consider: use SPDX license identifiers (see
> > https://spdx.org/licenses/)
>
> > For GPL 2 they are "GPL-2.0-only" and "GPL-2.0-or-later"
>
> Yeah, they have a history of using
> On Sun, 22 Sep 2019, Matt Turner wrote:
> An idea to consider: use SPDX license identifiers (see
> https://spdx.org/licenses/)
> For GPL 2 they are "GPL-2.0-only" and "GPL-2.0-or-later"
Yeah, they have a history of using silly names. What does 2.0 mean?
There is no such version of the GPL,
> On Sun, 22 Sep 2019, Matt Turner wrote:
> We are all aware. But the point is to explicitly put "-only" in the
> LICENSE metadata so that ebuild authors are less likely to confuse
> GPL-2 vs GPL-2+.
I don't see how renaming could possibly help with that.
>> Plus, it would result in paradoxi
On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 9:57 AM Matt Turner wrote:
>
> On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 9:09 AM Michał Górny wrote:
> > TL;DR: I'd like to replace 'GPL-2' with 'GPL-2-only' etc., having
> > the former trigger QA warning asking the dev to double-check if it's
> > 'GPL-2-only' or 'GPL-2+'.
>
> I think that'
On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 09:57:25PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Sat, 2019-09-21 at 14:26 -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 09:17:53PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Sat, 21 Sep 2019, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > TL;DR: I'd like to replace 'GPL-2' with 'GPL-2
This eclass includes the basic settings and a pkg_postinst function for
go modules.
Signed-off-by: William Hubbs
---
eclass/go-module.eclass | 79 +
1 file changed, 79 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 eclass/go-module.eclass
diff --git a/eclass/go-module
All,
after some further discussion, I decided to split the eclass.
The go-module eclass in this thread would be used if your upstream
project vendors its dependencies and the go-module-vendor eclass would
be used otherwise.
Thanks,
William
William Hubbs (2):
go-module.eclass: new eclass for g
This eclass adds a src_unpack function that supports the EGO_VENDOR
variable for vendoring modules.
---
eclass/go-module-vendor.eclass | 133 +
1 file changed, 133 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 eclass/go-module-vendor.eclass
diff --git a/eclass/go-module-vendor
On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 1:58 PM Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 21 Sep 2019, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> > I'd like to propose to employ a more systematic method of resolving this
> > problem. I would like to add additional explicit 'GPL-n-only' licenses,
> > and discourage using short 'GPL-n
> On Sat, 21 Sep 2019, Michał Górny wrote:
> I'd like to propose to employ a more systematic method of resolving this
> problem. I would like to add additional explicit 'GPL-n-only' licenses,
> and discourage using short 'GPL-n' in favor of them. The end result
> would be three licenses per
On Sat, 2019-09-21 at 22:37 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > > > > > On Sat, 21 Sep 2019, Michał Górny wrote:
> > That's my initial thought as well but I'm going to check them, just in
> > case. That is, unless the proposal is rejected.
>
> Please check this, before we are going to decide on it.
> On Sat, 21 Sep 2019, Michał Górny wrote:
> That's my initial thought as well but I'm going to check them, just in
> case. That is, unless the proposal is rejected.
Please check this, before we are going to decide on it.
Ulrich
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On 9/21/19 3:59 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> Honestly, do you believe having the choice of 'GPL-2' and 'GPL-2-only'
> people would choose the latter without actually checking the difference?
I've seen twenty people do ten stupider things in the last five minutes.
On Sat, 2019-09-21 at 21:27 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > > > > > On Sat, 21 Sep 2019, Michał Górny wrote:
> > We currently have @BINARY-REDISTRIBUTABLE license group that somewhat
> > concerns RESTRICT=bindist. I think it'd be reasonable to introduce
> > a matching group concerning RESTRICT=mi
On Sat, 2019-09-21 at 15:56 -0400, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 9/21/19 12:09 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > TL;DR: I'd like to replace 'GPL-2' with 'GPL-2-only' etc., having
> > the former trigger QA warning asking the dev to double-check if it's
> > 'GPL-2-only' or 'GPL-2+'.
> >
>
> T
On Sat, 2019-09-21 at 14:26 -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 09:17:53PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sat, 21 Sep 2019, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > TL;DR: I'd like to replace 'GPL-2' with 'GPL-2-only' etc., having
> > > the former trigger QA warning asking the dev
On 9/21/19 12:09 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hi,
>
> TL;DR: I'd like to replace 'GPL-2' with 'GPL-2-only' etc., having
> the former trigger QA warning asking the dev to double-check if it's
> 'GPL-2-only' or 'GPL-2+'.
>
This works only until people start putting
LICENSE="GPL-2-only"
for things
> On Sat, 21 Sep 2019, Michał Górny wrote:
> We currently have @BINARY-REDISTRIBUTABLE license group that somewhat
> concerns RESTRICT=bindist. I think it'd be reasonable to introduce
> a matching group concerning RESTRICT=mirror.
This would be a superset of @BINARY-REDISTRIBUTABLE, I suppos
On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 09:17:53PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Sat, 21 Sep 2019, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> > TL;DR: I'd like to replace 'GPL-2' with 'GPL-2-only' etc., having
> > the former trigger QA warning asking the dev to double-check if it's
> > 'GPL-2-only' or 'GPL-2+'.
>
> This
> On Sat, 21 Sep 2019, Michał Górny wrote:
> TL;DR: I'd like to replace 'GPL-2' with 'GPL-2-only' etc., having
> the former trigger QA warning asking the dev to double-check if it's
> 'GPL-2-only' or 'GPL-2+'.
This has been discussed before. There is no such license as GPL-2-only.
Ulrich
s
On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 9:09 AM Michał Górny wrote:
> TL;DR: I'd like to replace 'GPL-2' with 'GPL-2-only' etc., having
> the former trigger QA warning asking the dev to double-check if it's
> 'GPL-2-only' or 'GPL-2+'.
I think that's a good idea.
Hi,
TL;DR: I'd like to replace 'GPL-2' with 'GPL-2-only' etc., having
the former trigger QA warning asking the dev to double-check if it's
'GPL-2-only' or 'GPL-2+'.
GNU Licenses currently don't carry an upgrade clause -- instead, authors
are expected to decide whether they permit upgrade to newe
Am Mittwoch, 18. September 2019, 21:51:41 CEST schrieb Rolf Eike Beer:
> > Also, please do not add packages with no maintainer listed in
> > metadata.xml. You can list yourself + proxy-maint at least. If you
> > don't want to maintain them, you'll need to find someone else to do
> > it.
>
> Done.
Hi,
I'm planning to do some cleanups to the qmail stuff. One thing is that the
genqmail tarball is from 20080406 and needs to be patched itself, which makes
things complicated. So, does anyone know what was the source of these
tarballs? I can't look into the directory, maybe there are even olde
On 21-09-2019 09:06:01 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Sat, 2019-09-21 at 08:43 +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> > Why not teach our tools (equery, quse, etc.) to print these USE-flags
> > like Portage does? (looking them up to be valid expands)
> > Then users have nothing to be confused about (no d
Hi,
We currently have @BINARY-REDISTRIBUTABLE license group that somewhat
concerns RESTRICT=bindist. I think it'd be reasonable to introduce
a matching group concerning RESTRICT=mirror.
My proposition would be to add @DISTFILE-REDISTRIBUTABLE group with
the following rules:
- MUST permit redist
On Sat, 2019-09-21 at 08:43 +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 20-09-2019 22:53:53 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Fri, 2019-09-20 at 13:46 -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
> > > If we take this underscore rule to its logical extreme, then we should
> > > rename python_targets_python3_7 to python_targets_
29 matches
Mail list logo
