| 1 |
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 21:22:54 +0100 |
| 2 |
"Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò" <flameeyes@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> I wonder if with ACCEPT_LICENSES it would be possible to get a way to |
| 5 |
> represent this issue, like a "unredistributable" fake license, |
| 6 |
> disabled during GRP building for instance, so that the packages |
| 7 |
> needing that license wouldn't be built in binary form and |
| 8 |
> redistributed by us. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Any proposal on this issue? |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Well, we have a bindist USE flags for more or less this purpose -- it's |
| 13 |
hardly an optimal solution, but in this case from the sound of things |
| 14 |
the problematic linking could be disabled when building a binary |
| 15 |
distribution. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Obviously though that doesn't work in the more general case where said |
| 18 |
linkage is not based on an optional dep, so something better would be |
| 19 |
useful. I'm not sure LICENSE is the right way forward here -- it would |
| 20 |
work with the currently proposed syntax, but seems somehow an abuse of |
| 21 |
the system. On the other hand, though, I don't have a better option to |
| 22 |
hand at the moment, and it is a licensing issue after all... |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives