1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
2 |
Hash: SHA256 |
3 |
|
4 |
On 26/04/13 03:07 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote: |
5 |
> On 04/26/2013 02:44 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
6 |
>> On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina |
7 |
>> <zerochaos@g.o> wrote: |
8 |
>>> The user is distinguishing right from wrong by setting things |
9 |
>>> like USE=bindist, portage simply doesn't seem to be respecting |
10 |
>>> that in the case of RESTRICT=bindist. |
11 |
> |
12 |
>> I think what is missing is a clear set of definitions. |
13 |
> |
14 |
>> USE=-bindist means build a package that the maintainer thinks |
15 |
>> isn't legal to distribute under some set of circumstances (which |
16 |
>> might or might not be the user's circumstances). |
17 |
> |
18 |
>> RESTRICT=bindist in an ebuild means what? Let's look at the |
19 |
>> devmanual: RESTRICT - A space-delimited list of portage features |
20 |
>> to restrict. Valid values are fetch, mirror, strip, testand |
21 |
>> userpriv. See man 5 ebuild for details. man 5 ebuild: bindist - |
22 |
>> Distribution of built packages is restricted. |
23 |
> |
24 |
>> And how does a user tell portage whether they intend to |
25 |
>> redistribute something in the first place? The fact that an |
26 |
>> ebuild sets RESTRICT=bindist does not have anything to do with |
27 |
>> whether it will in fact be redistributed. It sounds like we |
28 |
>> would need a FEATURES=bindist to go along with it. Oh, and it |
29 |
>> sounds like RESTRICT=bindist often should be conditional based on |
30 |
>> USE=-bindist, but you can't set RESTRICT conditionally, so that |
31 |
>> won't work. |
32 |
> |
33 |
>> Also, isn't all of this somewhat redundant with ACCEPT_LICENSE? |
34 |
>> It is the license that allows you to redistribute something in |
35 |
>> the first place, though with some licenses it might be |
36 |
>> conditional upon how the package is built/branded. |
37 |
> |
38 |
>> The last thing we need on any of this stuff is a hard error. |
39 |
>> What is needed first is for those who care about such things to |
40 |
>> cleanly specify a sane set of definitions and behavior. |
41 |
> |
42 |
> I really appreciate your input here, I think you may be onto |
43 |
> something. Maybe the best thing to do would be to drop |
44 |
> RESTRICT=bindist entirely and just make a new license group for it? |
45 |
> Maybe it would even be possible to automatically |
46 |
> ACCEPT_LICENSE=bindist when USE=-bindist and vice-versa? This |
47 |
> seems a more productive direction than anything I was able to come |
48 |
> up with. |
49 |
> |
50 |
> Thanks! Zero |
51 |
> |
52 |
> |
53 |
|
54 |
erm.. OK just to back up on things a little bit..: |
55 |
|
56 |
IUSE="bindist" tends to be for adjusting a particular package so that |
57 |
it either is generic and CAN be binary-distributable, or will build as |
58 |
upstream intended (with, for instance, upstream branding) and |
59 |
therefore is not. Right? |
60 |
|
61 |
So, in essence, the use flag can allow for an exception of a 'bindist' |
62 |
LICENSE. Would it make more sense then to have LICENSE= contents |
63 |
controlled conditionally? ie: |
64 |
|
65 |
www-client/firefox: |
66 |
LICENSE="MPL-2.0 GPL-2 LGPL-2.1 |
67 |
!bindist? ( MPL-2.0-bindist-restriction )" |
68 |
|
69 |
Of course for other packages there is no USE="bindist" functionality |
70 |
as it's not possible to allow any binary redistribution. These |
71 |
probably should just go into the 'bindist' license group. |
72 |
|
73 |
I think it would make a lot of sense to NOT let a use flag suddenly |
74 |
adjust ACCEPT_LICENSE. However, it -would- i think make a lot of |
75 |
sense to ebuilds that implement a bindist use flag to adjust the |
76 |
licenses that apply to the emerged result. |
77 |
|
78 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
79 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) |
80 |
|
81 |
iF4EAREIAAYFAlF61FsACgkQ2ugaI38ACPBDIgEAj5QCD3sKZcrsQpaA/4OTRdfs |
82 |
jlhH0owE4epqvYlHgqUBAJ+eUsKPUBfgnKK7MfzGhvzdACgnb1UlMJ4Ax35L8iKY |
83 |
=kdJW |
84 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |