| 1 |
Just to bring to a wider audience the discussion that we had on bug |
| 2 |
#140180 [1]. |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
While documenting new-style virtuals for devmanual we began to discuss |
| 5 |
what the LICENSE variable for the virtual ebuilds should contain. For |
| 6 |
the reasons listed on the bug, we came to a conclusion that the LICENSE |
| 7 |
variable should be empty for these ebuilds. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
A brief list of the reasons: |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
* the ebuild doesn't really install anything |
| 12 |
* the ebuild itself is already licensed under GPLv2 as is every |
| 13 |
other ebuild in the tree |
| 14 |
* ACCEPT_LICENSE accepts an empty LICENSE, so the virtual is |
| 15 |
automatically accepted |
| 16 |
* if the above were not true, we would have the fun maintainence |
| 17 |
nightmare of having to list every license that could satisfy the |
| 18 |
virtual in the LICENSE variable |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
So long as everyone understands this, I'll go ahead and commit the new |
| 21 |
documentation to devmanual and ask zmedico to commit the repoman change |
| 22 |
to make sure LICENSE="" in the virtual category. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Thanks, |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
[1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=140180 |
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Mark Loeser |
| 30 |
email - halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org |
| 31 |
web - http://www.halcy0n.com |
Archives