| 1 |
On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 02:48:52AM +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 18:40:27 -0800 |
| 3 |
> "Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > I'm for ranged licenses, but I think attention needs to be paid to the |
| 5 |
> > syntax. The postfix [] form does nicely separate the version |
| 6 |
> > information from the actual license name (moreso than the traditional |
| 7 |
> > CPV atom), but the LGPL[>=2&<3] example looks to be overloading it, |
| 8 |
> > when we already have AND/OR at the higher level. |
| 9 |
> > LICENSE="|| ( Eclipse ( LGPL[>=2] LGPL[<3] ) )" |
| 10 |
> > Which is, Eclipse OR (LGPL v2 up to, but not including LGPLv3). |
| 11 |
> The ( ) form means something else for package dependencies, and so can't |
| 12 |
> be used for ranged dependencies. In particular: |
| 13 |
> ( >=foo/bar-3 <foo-bar/4 ) |
| 14 |
> will (correctly) be matched if both foo/bar-5 and foo/bar-1 are |
| 15 |
> installed, which can happen due to slots. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Ok, I revise that for slots then: |
| 18 |
LICENSE="|| ( Eclipse ( LGPL[>=2] !LGPL[>=3] ) )" |
| 19 |
(which is more in line with my description of the license string). |
| 20 |
The !/NEGATION might be inside the [] blocks, since the AND and OR |
| 21 |
operators are. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
Robin Hugh Johnson |
| 25 |
Gentoo Linux Developer & Infra Guy |
| 26 |
E-Mail : robbat2@g.o |
| 27 |
GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85 |
Archives