Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev <gentoo-dev@l.g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Should mirror restriction imply bindist restriction?
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 19:53:55
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Should mirror restriction imply bindist restriction? by "Rick \\\"Zero_Chaos\\\" Farina"
1 On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina
2 <zerochaos@g.o> wrote:
3 > Based on Rich's suggestion my thought is have a new license group for
4 > things which are ALWAYS binary restricted, accepted by default, but
5 > removed from ACCEPT_LICENSE when USE=bindist. That is just what is
6 > rolling around in my head right now, but it is semi-sane.
8 We already have the BINARY-REDISTRIBUTABLE group. So, if you just set
9 ACCEPT_LICENSE=@BINARY-REDISTRIBUTABLE you'll only get packages you
10 can redistribute. Then you can just set ACCEPT_LICENSE=FOO in
11 /etc/portage/env for packages you are handling with USE=-bindist or
12 whatever.
14 Sure, it might be a little nicer to have a bit more automation, but
15 the existing license group lets you set things conservatively so
16 you'll never be burned by accidentally redistributing something you
17 can't. I'd be interested in hearing from anybody who actually has the
18 need to redistribute things and thinks that this is insufficient.
20 Rich