Petteri Räty wrote:
> Petteri Räty wrote:
>
>>R Hill wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Daniel Ahlberg wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
* if ebuild installs COPYING and/or INSTALL into doc.
>>>
>>>
>>>Is this actually important? There are a hell of a lot of ebuilds that fail
>>>under this rule. I'd like to start filing
On Monday 26 December 2005 08:24, Petteri Räty wrote:
> Petteri Räty wrote:
> > R Hill wrote:
> >>Daniel Ahlberg wrote:
> >>>* if ebuild installs COPYING and/or INSTALL into doc.
> >>
> >>Is this actually important? There are a hell of a lot of ebuilds that
> >> fail under this rule. I'd like to
On Monday 26 December 2005 14:57, Drake Wyrm wrote:
> You're going to be hard-pressed to get any kind of consensus on this
> issue. Many dev seems to feel that the license belongs there. In some
> cases the COPYING, LICENSE, and/or INSTALL files contain, not boilerplate
> drivel, but actually uniqu
On Monday 26 December 2005 15:02, Petteri Räty wrote:
> It's just that usually the
> INSTALL file is not really useful unless you are manually installing the
> package from sources and then you will have the INSTALL file in there
> with the sources.
Yeah, and in that case I usually judge it useless
Drake Wyrm wrote:
> Petteri R??ty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Petteri R??ty wrote:
>>
>>>R Hill wrote:
>>>
Daniel Ahlberg wrote:
>* if ebuild installs COPYING and/or INSTALL into doc.
Is this actually important? There are a hell of a lot of ebuilds that fail
under thi
Petteri R??ty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Petteri R??ty wrote:
> > R Hill wrote:
> >>Daniel Ahlberg wrote:
> >>>* if ebuild installs COPYING and/or INSTALL into doc.
> >>
> >>Is this actually important? There are a hell of a lot of ebuilds that fail
> >>under this rule. I'd like to start filing
