Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 03:58:58 -0600 From: Robin Schoonover <end@endif.cjb.net> To: Greg Lewis <glewis@eyesbeyond.com> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Drop of portindex Message-ID: <20040918035858.41c84301@zork> In-Reply-To: <20040918054956.GA75809@misty.eyesbeyond.com> References: <20040915093120.3067472e@dolphin.local.net> <20040915175615.11c92103@zork> <20040916004320.GB68701@thought.org> <200409152056.38900.linimon@lonesome.com> <20040918054956.GA75809@misty.eyesbeyond.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 23:49:56 -0600 Greg Lewis <glewis@eyesbeyond.com> wrote: > My point is not that we should conform to LSB, but rather that there > is at least one example of a very large set of third party software > going the other way. Since writers of RPM spec files face the same > issues(keeping the tag in sync with the source and whether the tag is > a guarantee of licensing or not) I simply wonder how they tackled them > (if they did :). > Getting out of date is probably the worst problem with the idea. > Anyone know if this issue has come up in Gentoo? It obviously has in > Debian since they categorise all their software into "free" and > "non-free". > *crawls over to roommate's machine which runs gentoo* After looking at the ebuild files, I see lines like LICENSE="GPL-2" It's beginning to look like we might be the only ones who -don't- do this. (That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it's definately something to ponder.) -- Robin Schoonover (aka End) # # I don't want to bore you, but there's nobody else around for me to bore.#
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040918035858.41c84301>