1 |
Rémi Cardona wrote: |
2 |
> Unless people dedicate time and effort, ACCEPT_LICENSE is useless. |
3 |
|
4 |
Well, I think an incomplete tool is better than no tool at all. Even |
5 |
though it's far from perfect, I still found it very useful to create a |
6 |
free system. I'm certainly interested in helping to improve it. |
7 |
|
8 |
> I'd say this is probably better suited for gentoo-project, but it's |
9 |
> probably ok to start here, to gauge interest :) |
10 |
|
11 |
Thanks, I'll subscribe to gentoo-project also. |
12 |
|
13 |
|
14 |
Jeremy Olexa wrote: |
15 |
> File bugs mate. Licensing is not exactly clear to all users or devs. As |
16 |
> can be seen here[1] for dos2unix. It sounds like you care in this area, |
17 |
> so get involved. |
18 |
|
19 |
That looks like a great starting point, thanks. The bug you mentioned |
20 |
has been fixed already! |
21 |
|
22 |
|
23 |
Robin H. Johnson wrote: |
24 |
> The COPYRIGHT file in dos2unix is actually a 2-clause BSD license. I've |
25 |
> updated the ebuild suitably. |
26 |
|
27 |
Thanks, much appreciated. |
28 |
|
29 |
> File a bug with some ebuilds. |
30 |
|
31 |
It looks like somebody already has. See |
32 |
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=266157. I tested the latest |
33 |
ebuild, and it worked fine (see comment #59.) What would have to be done |
34 |
to get it in the main tree? |
35 |
|
36 |
> A profile is not the answer here. |
37 |
> An optional DEP block || ( media-fonts/corefonts ... ) where the other |
38 |
> item does resolve using ACCEPT_LICENSES is what should be used. |
39 |
|
40 |
I'll have to read through the devmanual, thanks for the pointer. |
41 |
|
42 |
> In your case, I propose that we add one or more stacked groups, with an |
43 |
> initial content as such... |
44 |
|
45 |
I'll start working on expanding LIBRE-FREE-1 then. I assume a bug report |
46 |
would be the correct place to suggest this when I've made a decent |
47 |
start? |