Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 05:21:58 +0100 From: Kurt Jaeger <pi@freebsd.org> To: Yasuhiro KIMURA <yasu@utahime.org> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Bug report commit request Message-ID: <20190212042158.GJ2748@home.opsec.eu> In-Reply-To: <20190211.191709.469233083199067332.yasu@utahime.org> References: <20190211091032.GH2748@home.opsec.eu> <20190211.183945.1315873006023602929.yasu@utahime.org> <20190211094449.GI2748@home.opsec.eu> <20190211.191709.469233083199067332.yasu@utahime.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi! > >> > What about the LICENSE=NONE setting ? It stops the port from being build in poudriere ? > > So, does it sound sensible to define a LICENSE that one has to special-case > > immediatly just to do a test-build ? I mean, don't we all have better things > > to do than shooting ourselves in the feet ? > > There is really no license information about this software. So > according to license framework of FreeBSD ports there isn't anything > wrong about adding 'LICENSE=NONE' in Makefile of this port. The same is true for not adding a LICENSE line in this case. > And if it > is really problematic then what should be fixed is license framework > itself or behavior of poudriere about it rather than license > information of this port. Ad-hocism doesn't pay in the long run. There is no other LICENSE=NONE instance in the ports tree. -- pi@opsec.eu +49 171 3101372 One year to go !
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20190212042158.GJ2748>