1 |
On 04/26/2013 09:23 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
2 |
>>>>>> On Fri, 26 Apr 2013, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
>>> Currently RESTRICT=mirror and RESTRICT=bindist are independent of |
5 |
>>> each other. I wonder if the former should imply the latter. |
6 |
>>> |
7 |
>>> Is there any package where the files in SRC_URI cannot be mirrored |
8 |
>>> (i.e., redistributed), but where the built package can be |
9 |
>>> distributed? |
10 |
> |
11 |
>> i've used RESTRICT=mirror in the past when the files were really |
12 |
>> large (like games or toolchain source tarballs) and upstream already |
13 |
>> had a good mirroring system. in both cases, there was no binary |
14 |
>> redistribution restrictions. |
15 |
> |
16 |
>> so my answer would be no: we have two independent knobs and let's |
17 |
>> keep them that way. |
18 |
> |
19 |
> Right. And as was pointed to me on IRC, another legitimate case for |
20 |
> mirror restriction are packages in overlays whose distfiles are not on |
21 |
> mirrors. Then it obviously makes no sense to check mirrors for it. |
22 |
|
23 |
And sunrise suggested to not set it, to make the move into main tree |
24 |
less error prone. |
25 |
|
26 |
I think, all the legal terms "no mirror" and "no branded redistribution" |
27 |
are clear, but portage might get problems to check/recognise "within a |
28 |
legal entity". DNS zones, netblocks and so on are all optional and do |
29 |
not necessarily represent these boundaries. |
30 |
trusted computing platform ... please no. |
31 |
GPG keys sets with encrypted tarballs would raise the awareness, all of |
32 |
them bypass-able |
33 |
|
34 |
In the end, legally speaking, it's the user pushing buttons and portage |
35 |
is no licensed lawyer. |
36 |
|
37 |
Michael |
38 |
-- |
39 |
Michael Weber |
40 |
Gentoo Developer |
41 |
web: https://xmw.de/ |
42 |
mailto: Michael Weber <xmw@g.o> |