| 1 |
On 11/23/03 Jason Stubbs wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Hello all, |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> I've done a small patch which checks for licenses but have come across |
| 6 |
> an issue while testing. Take the following: |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> xfree contains LICENSE="X11 MSttfEULA" |
| 9 |
> qt contains LICENSE="QPL-1.0 | GPL-2" |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> What other lexical forms are there? The ebuild howto doesn't even |
| 12 |
> mention the above construct. Will I find something like "(LIC1 LIC2) | |
| 13 |
> LIC3"? |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Most importantly, though, does portage already contain the code to |
| 16 |
> parse these somewhere? |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
So before we can go ahead and implement this the following points have |
| 19 |
to be cleared: |
| 20 |
- formal syntax and semantic of the LICENSE variable |
| 21 |
- What should be the default for ACCEPT_LICENSES, this is probably a |
| 22 |
point for the managers meeting |
| 23 |
- How should portage handle packages with unaccepted licenses |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Marius |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be |
| 31 |
Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better. |
Archives