| 1 |
Christian Faulhammer wrote: |
| 2 |
> Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@×××××××××××××.uk>: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> Is this something worth pinching for a future EAPI? If we go with the |
| 5 |
>> postfix [] form for ranged deps, it'd translate into: |
| 6 |
>> LICENSE="=GPL-2" (or equivalently, LICENSE="GPL[=2]") |
| 7 |
>> LICENSE="|| ( GPL[>=2] BSD )" (or equivalently, ">=GPL-2") |
| 8 |
>> LICENSE="|| ( LGPL[>=2&<3] Eclipse )" |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> This is hardly readable, in my eyes at least but I am older than 25 |
| 11 |
> now. I think it is not really necessary (overkill), but I haven't |
| 12 |
> heard anything from other people yet. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
>> One thing that would need to be decided: |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
>> LICENSE="GPL-2" |
| 17 |
>> |
| 18 |
>> Would that require an = prefix? To simplify things, we could say that |
| 19 |
>> *only* the postfix [] form counts for licenses... |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> To have backwards compatability...yes. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
Could this not simplify to <license><version-spec> where version spec is |
| 24 |
either a simple -ver prefix as with GPL-2 (meaning only GPL-2) or a postfix |
| 25 |
range specifier? IOW allow the existing usage since its meaning is clear |
| 26 |
and it's easy to parse. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
I'd also be in favour of an implicit = so that GPL[>2] would cover the most |
| 29 |
common usage. After all, in the realm of licensing it makes no sense to |
| 30 |
have eg GPL[>3] mean anything after, but not including 3, since the new |
| 31 |
version must be specified before usage for it to mean anything legally. |
| 32 |
(Otherwise how is a user to know the terms of the license being referred |
| 33 |
to?) |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Overall though I like it; GPL[2|3] (from other post) vs '|| ( GPL-2 GPL-3 )' |
| 36 |
sounds nice as well. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives