| 1 |
Petteri Räty wrote: |
| 2 |
> Petteri Räty wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>>R Hill wrote: |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>>>Daniel Ahlberg wrote: |
| 8 |
>>> |
| 9 |
>>> |
| 10 |
>>> |
| 11 |
>>> |
| 12 |
>>>>* if ebuild installs COPYING and/or INSTALL into doc. |
| 13 |
>>> |
| 14 |
>>> |
| 15 |
>>>Is this actually important? There are a hell of a lot of ebuilds that fail |
| 16 |
>>>under this rule. I'd like to start filing patches for some of the packages in |
| 17 |
>>>this list so I'm interested in knowing what's worth fixing and what's being |
| 18 |
>>>pedantic. |
| 19 |
>>> |
| 20 |
>> |
| 21 |
>> |
| 22 |
>>Not a blocker but just useless. Filing patches for ebuilds doing this is |
| 23 |
>>greatly appreciated by at least me. |
| 24 |
>> |
| 25 |
>>Regards, |
| 26 |
>>Petteri |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=113680 |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> So is there a policy about [not] installing the COPYING or LICENSE files |
| 32 |
> already? If there isn't one, I propose we make a decision about this to |
| 33 |
> have uniform behaviour across the tree. |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> Regards, |
| 36 |
> Petteri |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Looking at the thread I don't see anyone opposing not installing for |
| 40 |
example a copy of GPL-2 or the generic INSTALL file. So could we write a |
| 41 |
policy somewhere not to these duplicated files when we are not legally |
| 42 |
required to install these files? That should satisfy any conserns raised. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
Regards, |
| 45 |
Petteri |
Archives