Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 23:57:03 +0800 From: wen heping <wenheping@gmail.com> To: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@freebsd.org> Cc: Wen Heping <wen@freebsd.org>, cvs-ports@freebsd.org, Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org>, cvs-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/audio/kaudiocreator Makefile ports/audio/libmusicbrainz3 Makefile ports/audio/p5-MusicBrainz-DiscID Makefile ports/audio/picard Makefile ports/audio/py-musicbrainz2 Makefile ports/audio/xmms2 Makefile Message-ID: <BANLkTi=Jenf3Jj6Pz%2BHT-poVX9wpaUrHjw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20110328154418.GB81772@FreeBSD.org> References: <201103280301.p2S31Wib041665@repoman.freebsd.org> <AANLkTimQLA_kfPu%2BfpOG19-g%2BcWcJ0-rYzRyi6BKtFfQ@mail.gmail.com> <20110328154418.GB81772@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2011/3/28 Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@freebsd.org>:
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 11:44:50AM +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
>> 2011/3/28 Wen Heping <wen@freebsd.org>:
>> > wen 2011-03-28 03:01:32 UTC
>> >
>> > Modified files:
>> > audio/kaudiocreator Makefile
>> > audio/libmusicbrainz3 Makefile
>> > audio/p5-MusicBrainz-DiscID Makefile
>> > audio/picard Makefile
>> > audio/py-musicbrainz2 Makefile
>> > audio/xmms2 Makefile
>> > Log:
>> > - Bump PORTREVISION to chase the update of audio/libdiscid
>> >
>> > PR: ports/155977
>> > Submitted by: Jason E. Hale <bsdkaffee@gmail.com>
>> >
>> > Revision Changes Path
>> > 1.3 +1 -1 ports/audio/kaudiocreator/Makefile
>> > 1.46 +1 -0 ports/audio/libmusicbrainz3/Makefile
>> > 1.2 +2 -1 ports/audio/p5-MusicBrainz-DiscID/Makefile
>> > 1.27 +2 -3 ports/audio/picard/Makefile
>> > 1.11 +5 -1 ports/audio/py-musicbrainz2/Makefile
>> > 1.60 +2 -1 ports/audio/xmms2/Makefile
>> >
>>
>> There is a mistake in audio/py-musicbrainz2, which is broken now
>> (Missing license file for BSD in COPYING.txt), it should be
>> ${WRKSRC}/COPYING.txt for LICENSE_FILE.
>
> Shouldn't we instead stop abusing LICENSE_FILE when it is just general
> FOO license text as defined by LICENSE=FOO?
yes, we discussed this problem before.
But I still think LICENSE and LICENSE_FILE could co-exist.
>
> In the past we've tried to avoid spamming the users' filesystems with
> excessive copies of GPL; I was hoping that LICENSE framework would
I hope it too.
wen
> finally solve the problem once and for all; however, people continue to
> define LICENSE and LICENSE_FILE which usually points to verbatim license
> text thereof. :-(
>
> ./danfe
>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?BANLkTi=Jenf3Jj6Pz%2BHT-poVX9wpaUrHjw>