| 1 |
On 2012-12-30, Alexander Berntsen wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> All packages should have local descriptions of what the bindist |
| 4 |
> USE-flag specifically does. This should be a policy when writing |
| 5 |
> ebuilds that include it. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Agreed, as a gentoo user, I like to know why is the flag there. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> The bindist USE-flag is for avoiding components in a package that |
| 10 |
> would result in non-re-distributable binary packages. The generic |
| 11 |
> global description is "Flag to enable or disable options for prebuilt |
| 12 |
> (GRP) packages (eg. due to licensing issues)". This is very vague. It |
| 13 |
> does not in any way explain the specifics of what enabling the flag |
| 14 |
> will do. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
And, if the global description is kept, maybe it should be rewritten so |
| 17 |
that it reads something like "Disable compilation of features or content |
| 18 |
that render the resulting binaries undistributable (due to, |
| 19 |
eg. licensing or patents)". |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> This means that each package should describe what it specifically |
| 22 |
> does. www-client/firefox-10.0.11 is one example that does this |
| 23 |
> properly with "Disable official Firefox branding (icons, name) which |
| 24 |
> are not binary-redistributable according to upstream." This is |
| 25 |
> perfectly descriptive. net-misc/openssh is one example that does not |
| 26 |
> have a local/specific description. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> To me, this is unacceptable. Someone who cares enough about licensing |
| 29 |
> and distribution etc. to set the bindist USE-flag, will likely care |
| 30 |
> about the specifics of the it as well. Furthermore, different people |
| 31 |
> find different things unacceptable. As an example, patent-encumbered |
| 32 |
> codec support in ffmpeg is something that might be considered |
| 33 |
> unacceptable to some. However, the very same people might not be worried |
| 34 |
> about trademark/branding-related issues, such as is the case with |
| 35 |
> Firefox. This is comparable to how some find the GPL acceptable, but |
| 36 |
> not the Artistic License 1.0, and ebuilds do indeed require the |
| 37 |
> licence -- not LICENSE="free-ish". |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
It is indeed like LICENSE="free-ish". The description does not tell much |
| 40 |
more than "there may be some issue". And issues are different. While, |
| 41 |
with Firefox, the issue is just that you can't distribute the binaries, |
| 42 |
with patents I wonder if there are cases were you aren't even legally |
| 43 |
allowed to compile the code for your own personal use (but, well, |
| 44 |
IANAL). |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
[...] |
| 47 |
> ffmpeg is problematic... see: |
| 48 |
> <https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=369249>. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
I see his point that emerge will sort of imply what does bindist do, but |
| 51 |
it requires running emerge several times with different USE flag |
| 52 |
combinations, while just writing a small explanation wouldn't hurt and |
| 53 |
would save a lot of time. |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
-- |
| 56 |
Nuno Silva (aka njsg) |
| 57 |
http://njsg.sdf-eu.org/ |
Archives