| 1 |
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@×××××××××××××.uk> said: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 20:06:46 +0100 |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Christian Faulhammer <opfer@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > One thing that would need to be decided: |
| 6 |
> > > |
| 7 |
> > > LICENSE="GPL-2" |
| 8 |
> > > |
| 9 |
> > > Would that require an = prefix? To simplify things, we could say |
| 10 |
> > > that *only* the postfix [] form counts for licenses... |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > To have backwards compatability...yes. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Backwards compatibility isn't necessary over an EAPI bump. The question |
| 15 |
> is whether it's sufficiently useful that having inconsistent parsing |
| 16 |
> rules for dep specs and license specs is acceptable. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
perhaps its really a matter of how often this would be used. for a span of |
| 19 |
three license versions, i'd prefer unranged notation as it's more easily |
| 20 |
read (opfer's argument). |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
/usr/portage/licenses seems to carry but a handfull of licenses with more |
| 23 |
than three version numbers. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
ranged version numbers OTOH are used much more often... |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
there is also the legal argument. it's better to state explicitly which |
| 28 |
versions apply and not have to cleanup the mess, when somebody decides to |
| 29 |
release GPL-2.5. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
kind regards |
| 32 |
Thilo |
Archives