Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Brian Harring <ferringb@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] "Commercial" software in portage
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 14:46:47
Message-Id: 20050923144251.GC18375@nightcrawler
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] "Commercial" software in portage by Philippe Trottier
1 On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 11:26:19AM +0300, Philippe Trottier wrote:
2 > Daniel Ostrow wrote:
3 > > On Wed, 2005-09-21 at 18:54 +0100, José Carlos Cruz Costa wrote:
4 > >
5 > >>Hi everybody,
6 > >>
7 > >>If it's commercial, the company in question should (and must) allow an
8 > >>ebuild for is product, like what happens with rpms and other packages.
9 > >>Adding commercial ebuilds to portage is like tainting the kernel with
10 > >>binary drivers.
11 > >>
12 > >>Maybe a better solution comes with gensync? If companies want ebuilds,
13 > >>sure. They go to the "commercial" portage. Hell, even put a price on
14 > >>maintaining those ebuilds.
15 > >>
16 > >>Remember that are a lot of people that don't want to use that kind of
17 > >>software. There are people that doesn't have even xorg and have to
18 > >>sync all the ebuilds from portage.
19 > >
20 > > This is what rsync excludes are for...there is no good reason to remove
21 > > things like doom3 and UT2k4 from the tree for the sole reason that they
22 > > are commercial packages. You don't want them...fine...exclude them.
23 > >
24 >
25 > Possible to make the default a non-commercial ebuild rsync ? The exclude
26 > file for rsync should be easy to make. That would be convenient for all
27 > and allow purist to keep their system clean. Also would allow coders to
28 > know what are the GNU weakest tools and work on them.
29
30 The rsync exclude list would be rather massive, and would require
31 modification to the rsync generation. Also results in cvs users
32 having a different tree then what those rsync'ing would get (not good
33 imo).
34
35 GLEP23's accept_license is (for me) the preferred solution; you have
36 everything locally, the choice of what you use is yours (rather then a
37 default upstream with a secondary repo of commercial).
38
39 ~harring

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] "Commercial" software in portage Jason Stubbs <jstubbs@g.o>