| 1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 15:19:46 -0500 |
| 3 |
> Andrew Gaffney <agaffney@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> I'm not sure that's really a feasible solution (but then you probably |
| 5 |
>> weren't suggesting it with that intention). Being able to create a |
| 6 |
>> "backup" of any installed package without re-emerging is pretty |
| 7 |
>> handy. Many people use it and there would be a revolt if quickpkg |
| 8 |
>> were removed. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Then live-filesystem-generated packages could be marked as 'not for |
| 11 |
> redistribution'. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
That's probably a good idea if only because there are certain binaries |
| 15 |
that we're not allowed to redistribute...things like Firefox with |
| 16 |
certain USE flags, or freetype with the better hinter. Neither of these |
| 17 |
can be redistributed in binary form with certain USE flags; Firefox will |
| 18 |
have to ship without its proper name, and freetype will have to use the |
| 19 |
sucky -- er, "magically more free" -- hinter. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
@vapier: |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Do potential licensing/copyright issues like these factor into your |
| 24 |
proposal in any way? wolf31o2 mentioned installing several identical |
| 25 |
boxes simultaneously using the same redistributed binaries, but in the |
| 26 |
case of these two packages, if they're built with -bindist on the live |
| 27 |
filesystem, redistributing it as-is isn't allowed. |
Archives