| 1 |
Simon Stelling <blubb@g.o> posted 451127AB.4060202@g.o, |
| 2 |
excerpted below, on Wed, 20 Sep 2006 13:36:11 +0200: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Every license which a package in the portage tree depends on gets a |
| 5 |
> package in the ``txt-licenses/`` category. Its ebuild must install the |
| 6 |
> license text to ``/usr/shared/licenses/``. The initial version shall be |
| 7 |
> 1 if there is no version specified. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> There will also be a bunch of meta-packages: At least |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> * ``txt-licenses/osi-disapproved-licenses``, * |
| 12 |
> ``txt-licenses/fsf-disapproved-licenses``, and * |
| 13 |
> ``txt-licenses/gpl-incompatible-licenses`` |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> should exist and be a dependency of |
| 16 |
> all licenses that possess the respective attribute. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Users can then assure that they do not implicitly agree with a license |
| 19 |
> they would not agree with explicitly by masking the license's package. |
| 20 |
> If they only want to accept packages that are e.g. approved by the FSF, |
| 21 |
> they can simply mask the ``txt-licenses/fsf-disapproved`` package. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I like the idea, but this part won't work as is, will it? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Does/can portage mask dependencies when a metapackage is masked? Other |
| 26 |
than here, would that even be desired? If so, how deep does it go? |
| 27 |
Obviously we can't very well mask the glibc dependency, for instance (tho |
| 28 |
the Gentoo BSD and OSX folks might not think that sounds so unreasonable |
| 29 |
=8^). |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
If dependencies aren't auto-masked as well, there goes your nice easy |
| 32 |
fsf-disapproved masking! |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 36 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 37 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives