From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Sep 18 09:59:11 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB15216A4CE for ; Sat, 18 Sep 2004 09:59:11 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail.halls.colostate.edu (halls-mailgw.acns.colostate.edu [129.82.100.23]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FB9A43D49 for ; Sat, 18 Sep 2004 09:59:11 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from end@endif.cjb.net) Received: from zork (inge069131.halls.colostate.edu [129.82.69.131]) i8I9wwbh014297; Sat, 18 Sep 2004 03:58:58 -0600 Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 03:58:58 -0600 From: Robin Schoonover To: Greg Lewis 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> X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 0.9.12a (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd5.3) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: clamd / ClamAV version 0.71, clamav-milter version 0.71 X-Virus-Status: Clean cc: Mark Linimon cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Drop of portindex X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 09:59:12 -0000 On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 23:49:56 -0600 Greg Lewis 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 Getting out of date is probably the worst problem with the idea.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.#