| 1 |
Petteri R??ty <betelgeuse@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Petteri R??ty wrote: |
| 3 |
> > R Hill wrote: |
| 4 |
> >>Daniel Ahlberg wrote: |
| 5 |
> >>>* if ebuild installs COPYING and/or INSTALL into doc. |
| 6 |
> >> |
| 7 |
> >>Is this actually important? There are a hell of a lot of ebuilds that fail |
| 8 |
> >>under this rule. I'd like to start filing patches for some of the packages in |
| 9 |
> >>this list so I'm interested in knowing what's worth fixing and what's being |
| 10 |
> >>pedantic. |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > Not a blocker but just useless. Filing patches for ebuilds doing this is |
| 13 |
> > greatly appreciated by at least me. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=113680 |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> So is there a policy about [not] installing the COPYING or LICENSE files |
| 18 |
> already? If there isn't one, I propose we make a decision about this to |
| 19 |
> have uniform behaviour across the tree. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
You're going to be hard-pressed to get any kind of consensus on this |
| 22 |
issue. Many dev seems to feel that the license belongs there. In some |
| 23 |
cases the COPYING, LICENSE, and/or INSTALL files contain, not boilerplate |
| 24 |
drivel, but actually unique, useful information. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Certainly there could be value in leaving out _yet_another_ copy of the |
| 27 |
GPL and the banal INSTALL, but even that wouldn't justify a universal |
| 28 |
ban on certain file names. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
In the depths of my heart, I can't help being convinced |
| 32 |
that my fellow men, with a few exceptions, are worthless. |
| 33 |
-- Sigmund Freud |
Archives