| 1 |
Christian Faulhammer wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o>: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> > While we are not distributing binaries, I could easily add a |
| 6 |
>> > USE flag to enable it; the user compiles it himself, so it is all |
| 7 |
>> > fine. But now regard the existence of binary hosts, are they |
| 8 |
>> > distributions of then illegal binaries? |
| 9 |
Definitely. IIRC distribution within an organisation doesn't count as |
| 10 |
distribution under the GPL but I am not a lawyer. (Nor do I like that |
| 11 |
acronym: my eyeballs survive reading it tho ;) Any public binhost like |
| 12 |
tinderbox[1] would be unable to make binaries available. |
| 13 |
>> isn't bindist useflag made for this purpose ? |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Great. Thanks...so what is common practice? Should the ebuild die, |
| 16 |
> telling people a feature will not be included or just exclude it with |
| 17 |
> an ewarn only? |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
Dunno what common practice is, but from a user perspective, it's much better |
| 20 |
if the binhost compiles without the feature than dies altogether. An |
| 21 |
ewarn/elog about bindist is sufficient for any competent admin (and newbs |
| 22 |
can search site:forums.gentoo.org or whinge on IRC, where they shall be |
| 23 |
gently enlightened ;) |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
[1] http://tinderbox.dev.gentoo.org/html/default-linux/ |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives