Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2013 08:49:50 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> To: Jason Helfman <jgh@FreeBSD.org> Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r322262 - in head/x11/sterm: . files Message-ID: <20130704084950.GA89973@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <201307040614.r646EQ96082557@svn.freebsd.org> References: <201307040614.r646EQ96082557@svn.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 06:14:26AM +0000, Jason Helfman wrote: > New Revision: 322262 > URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/322262 > > - install correct LICENSE, as it differs from standard > > +LICENSE= MITX > +LICENSE_NAME= MIT/X Consortium License > +LICENSE_FILE= ${WRKSRC}/LICENSE > +LICENSE_PERMS= dist-mirror dist-sell pkg-mirror pkg-sell auto-accept Google tells me that "MIT/X Consortium License" is what is usually abbreviated as just MIT. Google does not suggest any common usage of MITX. Can you elaborate a bit more on MIT vs. MITX here? I'm asking because, even if maintainer or you insist on installing custom LICENSE file, why LICENSE=MIT cannot be used alongside with LICENSE_FILE? > -+ @tic -s -o ${LOCALBASE}/share/misc st.info > ++ @tic -s -o ${LOCALBASE}/share/misc st.info Why was this part committed? It looks bogus to me. ./danfe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130704084950.GA89973>