| 1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 01 Jun 2009 23:01:04 +0200 |
| 3 |
> Mounir Lamouri <volkmar@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>>> The main show-stopper for this last time it came up was all those X |
| 6 |
>>> packages using their package name as a licence. Have you thought of |
| 7 |
>>> how to get that glaring QA issue addressed? |
| 8 |
>>> |
| 9 |
>> That's a very bad issue I never heard about before. |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> I see no other options. |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> If anyone has an idea or suggestion... |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Honestly, I suggest you find some poor sucker to do what the xorg team |
| 17 |
> should have done two years ago. It's a fair bit of work to fix all the |
| 18 |
> licences, but it's the best long term solution. Perhaps you could ask |
| 19 |
> the Council to see if they could nominate it as a special priority |
| 20 |
> project and encourage every developer to fix one package. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
I agree it's the best long term solution but I've the feeling this is |
| 23 |
going to take a very long time. |
| 24 |
This feature (ACCEPT_LICENSE) is important to remove check_license() |
| 25 |
call from ebuilds which need user input while merging. Interaction in |
| 26 |
ebuild should be avoided and it is a blocker for a fully functional |
| 27 |
portage backend for packagekit (my gsoc project). |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Maybe cleaning licenses should be done before making this feature |
| 30 |
available/mandatory but we should avoid creating a never-ending task. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Mounir |
Archives