Re: [gentoo-dev] "Commercial" software in portage

[Chris Gianelloni]

On Wed, 2005-09-21 at 14:00 -0400, Daniel Ostrow wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-09-21 at 18:54 +0100, José Carlos Cruz Costa wrote:
> > Hi everybody,
> >
> > If it's commercial, the company in question should (and must) allow an
> > ebuild for is product, like what happens with rpms and other packages.
> > Adding commercial ebuilds to portage is like tainting the kernel with
> > binary drivers.
> >
> > Maybe a better solution comes with gensync? If companies want ebuilds,
> > sure. They go to the "commercial" portage. Hell, even put a price on
> > maintaining those ebuilds.
> >
> > Remember that are a lot of people that don't want to use that kind of
> > software. There are people that doesn't have even xorg and have to
> > sync all the ebuilds from portage.
>
> This is what rsync excludes are for...there is no good reason to remove
> things like doom3 and UT2k4 from the tree for the sole reason that they
> are commercial packages. You don't want them...fine...exclude them.

...or just don't emerge them.  It isn't like we're sending SpanKY to
your house to force you to play them.  Many commercial packages are
designed to be used on RPM-based distributions, so many users find out
ebuilds invaluable for these things.

The whole point I am trying to make is that I am *not* going to make any
sort of political decision, but rather implement a slight change
tree-wide to empower users to make decisions of that sort for
themselves.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux