Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 23 Jul 2016 12:03:22 +0000
From:      bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org
To:        gnome@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   [Bug 211201] print/freetype2: update to 2.6.5, replace LCD_FILTERING with V40 code
Message-ID:  <bug-211201-6497-nnCp0itqZm@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-211201-6497@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
References:  <bug-211201-6497@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D211201

--- Comment #13 from lightside <lightside@gmx.com> ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Do you see actual license text (same as Templates/Licenses/GPLv2) or the
> following stub? It happens with GPLv2+, LGPL21+, etc. but not with GPLv2,
> LGPL21, etc.
>=20
>  The license: GPLv2+ (GNU General Public License version 2 (or later))
>  is standard, please read from the web.
>=20
> If you still don't see the issue then ignore LICENSE_FILE_GPLv2+ line.
I noticed the same issue with "+" for (L)GPL* licenses. In case of GPLv2+, =
it
shows the stub, even if LICENSE_FILE_GPLv2+ (or LICENSE_FILE_GPLv2) defined=
 (in
first case, this is addition (+=3D), right?). So, I think, the usage of "+"=
 is
wrong and better to define LICENSE_FILE for it or create another name(s)
without arithmetic operators in port's framework, if needed.

I also noticed, that you proposed your own version of licenses in comment #=
3. I
created slightly different proposal.

--=20
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.=



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-211201-6497-nnCp0itqZm>