| 1 |
I have an interesting (to me anyways) question. |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
Should LICENSE changes require a revision bump? |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
It kinda seems to me the answer should be yes. I don't know if any PM |
| 6 |
currently implements LICENSE filtering so there may not be any |
| 7 |
technical reason for it yet. And so I guess it comes down to a |
| 8 |
philosophical question - what determines the licence(s) a currently |
| 9 |
installed package is covered by? My thought is that this would be the |
| 10 |
value in /var/db/pkg/${P}/LICENSE, being the LICENSE value at install |
| 11 |
time, and therefore a change in the tree requires reinstallation to |
| 12 |
change that value. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
On the other hand, it also seems completely ridiculous from a practical |
| 15 |
POV to have to wait 30 days (and waste arch team resources) to fix an |
| 16 |
incorrect licence on a stable package. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Thoughts? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
gcc-porting, by design, by neglect |
| 23 |
treecleaner, for a fact or just for effect |
| 24 |
wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662 |
Archives