Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2013 13:50:02 GMT From: Vitaly Magerya <vmagerya@gmail.com> To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports/176716: [patch] devel/boehm-gc update to 7.2d combining previous PRs Message-ID: <201303081350.r28Do2Wl065622@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR ports/176716; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Vitaly Magerya <vmagerya@gmail.com> To: Hirohisa Yamaguchi <umq@ueo.co.jp> Cc: bug-followup@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports/176716: [patch] devel/boehm-gc update to 7.2d combining previous PRs Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2013 15:41:06 +0200 Hirohisa Yamaguchi <umq@ueo.co.jp> wrote: > I agree that showing effective option only is better(patch updated). Looks good. > DOCS is one of pre-defined global options. > We do not need to have it in OPTIONS_DEFINE each port. > When NOPORTDOCS is not defined, DOCS will be defined. > # see ports/Mk/bsd.options.mk Right, but it's not shown in the 'make config' dialog (or is it a problem on my end?). The rule of thumb I'm following is this: if the port has any other options, or if enabling DOCS pulls in new dependencies, show DOCS in the dialog. Otherwise leave it silent. This is a minor point though; I don't really mind the way it works now. > I thought boehm-gc is X11-like license (wikipedia said so). > [...] > yes, libatomic_ops is GPLv2'ed. The problem here (aside from libatomic_ops) is that the wording of the license in README matches neither MIT/Expat [1,2] nor MIT/X11 [3] licenses. For example, boehm-gc require you to add a notice about modified code if you want to redistribute modifications, which is something MIT/Expat doesn't require. [1] http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:Expat [2] http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT [3] http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:X11
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201303081350.r28Do2Wl065622>