| 1 |
First, thanks for pointing this out. |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
On 01/20/2011 07:51 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: |
| 4 |
> License compliance when distributing binaries; |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Not sure what you mean: if someone quickpkg's php and needs all the |
| 7 |
source? Well, they already downloaded them. Better keep them around, |
| 8 |
since it's *your* binary, not mine. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> distributions built upon Gentoo that might use old and set-in-stone |
| 11 |
> Portage trees; |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Same thing, as already pointed out in another message. I see the point |
| 14 |
in making it easier for them. That's okay. So what you're saying is |
| 15 |
we're upstream too and upstream's should provide their historical stuff. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> security issues that might be reported and needs to be |
| 18 |
> investigated, ... |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
If you're reporting a security issue in a ebuild that's no longer in |
| 21 |
tree (in php's case, chances are it got removed b/c of security :p), the |
| 22 |
bug wouldn't be investigated, right? |
Archives