| 1 |
On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 10:53:47PM +0200, Wernfried Haas wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 11:13:16PM +0200, Christian Birchinger wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Then you remove the profile just like you would remove any piece |
| 4 |
> > of software where the license is unacceptable. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Please look a bit up in the thread, my point was not only the profile |
| 7 |
> but integrating a package manager we have no control over. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> > The arguments are getting more and more "creative". It's almost |
| 10 |
> > like asking what we will do when gcc turns into a commercial |
| 11 |
> > product. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> The package manager is a central piece, if we ever want to change our |
| 14 |
> package manager we really should think about problems like that. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> > Please try to stay realistic and don't invent strange new |
| 17 |
> > theoretical problems. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Better safe then sorry. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
It's GPL-2, no? If the license changes before it's a full |
| 23 |
replacment ... remove the profile. If it changes after it |
| 24 |
became the standard ... fork it. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I think at the moment there's no plan to replace anything. |
| 27 |
There was a simple request to add a profile to make it easier |
| 28 |
for some people to develop something. We can talk about |
| 29 |
replacing anything later, when there are more intrusive |
| 30 |
requests like changing all ebuilds etc. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
I honestly think people are just bringing up the wildest things |
| 33 |
just to find another reason to say "no". It Looks a bit like |
| 34 |
even good ideas and project have no chance when they come from |
| 35 |
"the wrong people". |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Christian |
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives