1 |
On 01/01/2014 09:13 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
>> What use case is there for having the LICENSE apply to anything else? |
4 |
> |
5 |
> Some of us do redistribute the entire source package, so it does matter. |
6 |
> If it doesn't matter to you as a user then you can always leave it |
7 |
> unset and you remain completely oblivious to the change. |
8 |
|
9 |
I know, but if you take a pristine source tarball from upstream and |
10 |
distribute it to some third party, why should portage be involved? |
11 |
|
12 |
More metadata about the licenses is obviously a good thing and I'm not |
13 |
saying we shouldn't figure out a way to make it available in the tree |
14 |
(we should). But LICENSE is first and foremost a user interface to the |
15 |
package manager. I don't like the idea of overloading the portage user |
16 |
interface for use cases entirely outside the purview of portage. |
17 |
|
18 |
My objection is not strong, in any case, if this solves some real |
19 |
problem and is the best available way to do it. |