| 1 |
On Tuesday 27 December 2005 02:23, Brian Harring wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 02:08:25AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Tuesday 27 December 2005 02:01, R Hill wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > AFAIK most licenses need to be included with the distribution of the |
| 5 |
> > > source, not installed on the system after compilation. But I could be |
| 6 |
> > > wrong too. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > anyone who installs a program in portage already has a copy of the |
| 9 |
> > license on their system ... $PORTDIR/licenses/ |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Assuming the tree is locally available (remote, or binpkg's used to |
| 12 |
> generate images)... |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Lets put it this way; if ebuilds are specifically filtering it out on |
| 15 |
> their own, nobody who wants the licenses install has them. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
if the user has gone through lengths to cut down on filesize by cutting out |
| 18 |
their portage tree, then chances are pretty solid that they are cutting out |
| 19 |
things like /usr/share/{doc,man,info} as well which means even if an ebuild |
| 20 |
installed the file, it'd be cut anyways from the final filesystem |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> If they're installed via the ebuild, and removed via INSTALL_MASK, |
| 23 |
> everybody can get what they want. So why nuke by default? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
because it's pointless duplication ... the case is either the file is |
| 26 |
installed in both places, or not at all ... the people who trim their portage |
| 27 |
tree but not /usr/share/doc probably consists of those who do not know how to |
| 28 |
trim /usr/share/doc |
| 29 |
-mike |
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives