| 1 |
On Tuesday 29 June 2004 19:04, Eric Olinger wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hey All, |
| 3 |
> I'm just wondering whats the status on GLEP 5 [1]. If its still |
| 4 |
> going to be implemented, what is needed and what can be done to push |
| 5 |
> it forward. Do we need reference implementations or code changes to |
| 6 |
> portage. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> [1] http://glep.gentoo.org/glep-0005.html |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
GLEP 5 *must* be rejected in its current form. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Homepage and license are pieces of data that are specific to individual |
| 13 |
ebuilds, rather than to individual packages. We definitely have packages in |
| 14 |
the tree today where different versions of the same package are published |
| 15 |
under different licenses, and I'd be amazed if there aren't packages that |
| 16 |
have different homepages for different versions. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Any tools or websites that expect a package to only have one license and one |
| 19 |
homepage are working on an incorrect assumption, and are publishing |
| 20 |
inaccurate or misleading information. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
http://packages.gentoo.org/ is one example where this happens right now. |
| 23 |
Marduk - this needs fixing m8. I assume there is some small risk of legal |
| 24 |
liability if packages.gentoo.org is publishing the wrong license information |
| 25 |
for a package ;-) |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
If anyone really has enough time to waste on implementing GLEP 5, please come |
| 28 |
and talk to the recruiters@g.o. There's plenty of ways you can help |
| 29 |
us to help our users. GLEP 5 is not one of them. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Best regards, |
| 32 |
Stu |
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Stuart Herbert stuart@g.o |
| 35 |
Gentoo Developer http://www.gentoo.org/ |
| 36 |
http://stu.gnqs.org/diary/ |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
GnuPG key id# F9AFC57C available from http://pgp.mit.edu |
| 39 |
Key fingerprint = 31FB 50D4 1F88 E227 F319 C549 0C2F 80BA F9AF C57C |
| 40 |
-- |
Archives