Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 52 - GLEP 23 revisited

2006-09-20 Thread Josh Saddler
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Simon Stelling wrote: > Hello all, > > I would like you to share your comments on the attached GLEP with me. > > Thanks in advance! While this has a novel approach to the problem (at least, I haven't seen anything else that tries to solve the LICENS

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 52 - GLEP 23 revisited

2006-09-20 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 12:43, Kevin F. Quinn wrote: > Michael Cummings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > We already have an existing LICENSE keywording in the ebuilds, > > why not just focus on patching portage to allow a make.conf variable > > for allowed licenses and block based on that? > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 52 - GLEP 23 revisited

2006-09-20 Thread Kevin F. Quinn
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 10:05:00 -0400 Michael Cummings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 13:36 +0200, Simon Stelling wrote: > > > Every license which a package in the portage tree depends on gets a > > package in the ``txt-licenses/`` category. Its ebuild must install > > the licens

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 52 - GLEP 23 revisited

2006-09-20 Thread Stephen Bennett
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 13:36:11 +0200 Simon Stelling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I would like you to share your comments on the attached GLEP with me. It seems to me to be an attempt to move what is obviously the package manager's job into the tree, and making it far more complex than it needs to b

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 52 - GLEP 23 revisited

2006-09-20 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 07:36, Simon Stelling wrote: > I would like you to share your comments on the attached GLEP with me. why not just implement GLEP 23 -mike pgpZSKauYbIhF.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 52 - GLEP 23 revisited

2006-09-20 Thread Vlastimil Babka
Michael Cummings wrote: This doesn't make sense to me. I have a copy of every license used in the portage tree already in /usr/portage/licenses - why dup that again? We already have an existing LICENSE keywording in the ebuilds, why not just focus on patching portage to allow a make.conf variable

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 52 - GLEP 23 revisited

2006-09-20 Thread Luca Barbato
Simon Stelling wrote: > GLEP: 52 I don't like it: too complex, glep 23 is fine. lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 52 - GLEP 23 revisited

2006-09-20 Thread Michael Cummings
On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 13:36 +0200, Simon Stelling wrote: > Every license which a package in the portage tree depends on gets a package in > the ``txt-licenses/`` category. Its ebuild must install the license text to > ``/usr/shared/licenses/``. The initial version shall be 1 if there is no > ver

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 52 - GLEP 23 revisited

2006-09-20 Thread Brian Harring
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 03:36:07PM +0200, Krzysiek Pawlik wrote: > Simon Stelling wrote: > > I would like you to share your comments on the attached GLEP with me. > > I like the idea with one exception: > > > Licenses that need to be explicitly accepted before installation of a > > package > > (

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 52 - GLEP 23 revisited

2006-09-20 Thread Simon Stelling
Krzysiek Pawlik wrote: >> # Simon Stelling <[EMAIL PROTECTED] (20 Sep 2006) >> # This license needs to be agreed on explicitly to be considered >> # legally binding. >> # By unmasking and installing the package you agree with its terms. >> txt-licenses/wierd-license > > Wh

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 52 - GLEP 23 revisited

2006-09-20 Thread Krzysiek Pawlik
Simon Stelling wrote: > I would like you to share your comments on the attached GLEP with me. I like the idea with one exception: > Licenses that need to be explicitly accepted before installation of a package > (and only these) should be package.masked by default with a header like > the followi

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 52 - GLEP 23 revisited

2006-09-20 Thread Simon Stelling
Steev Klimaszewski wrote: > I think it is over engineering of a non-issue. Which non-issue in particular? -- Kind Regards, Simon Stelling Gentoo/AMD64 developer -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 52 - GLEP 23 revisited

2006-09-20 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Steev Klimaszewski wrote: > Simon Stelling wrote: >>> Hello all, >>> >>> I would like you to share your comments on the attached GLEP with me. >>> >>> Thanks in advance! >>> >>> >>> > > I think it is over engineering of a non-issue. And to expand, per

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 52 - GLEP 23 revisited

2006-09-20 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Simon Stelling wrote: > Hello all, > > I would like you to share your comments on the attached GLEP with me. > > Thanks in advance! > > > I think it is over engineering of a non-issue. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linu

[gentoo-dev] GLEP 52 - GLEP 23 revisited

2006-09-20 Thread Simon Stelling
Hello all, I would like you to share your comments on the attached GLEP with me. Thanks in advance! -- Kind Regards, Simon Stelling Gentoo/AMD64 developer GLEP: 52 Title: License Managment in Portage Version: $Revision: $ Last-Modified: $Date: $ Author: Simon Stelling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Statu