From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Mar 22 21:16:36 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 52A15E5D; Sat, 22 Mar 2014 21:16:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.cyberleo.net (mtumishi.cyberleo.net [216.226.128.201]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C75E8A1; Sat, 22 Mar 2014 21:16:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [172.16.44.4] (vitani.den.cyberleo.net [216.80.73.130]) by mail.cyberleo.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8805A3D87; Sat, 22 Mar 2014 17:16:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <532DFDB2.1090200@cyberleo.net> Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2014 16:16:34 -0500 From: CyberLeo Kitsana User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kevin Oberman , marino@freebsd.org Subject: Re: LPPL10 license consequences intended? (arabic/arabtex) References: <532DC88A.7010104@marino.st> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "ports@FreeBSD.org Ports" , Nicola Vitale X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2014 21:16:36 -0000 On 03/22/2014 02:27 PM, Kevin Oberman wrote: > On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 10:29 AM, John Marino wrote: > >> In December, Nicola set the license for Arabtex to LPPL10. >> The result is that the port is no longer packagable: >> >>> ====>> Ignoring arabic/arabtex: License LPPL10 needs confirmation, but >> BATCH is defined >>> build of /usr/ports/arabic/arabtex ended at Mon Mar 17 16:12:44 PDT 2014 >> >> From a quick conversation on IRC, I got the idea that the license was >> correct and many more Tex packages should also have this license. >> If/when that happens, does that mean Tex packages are only to be built >> from source? >> >> Is it correct that LPPL10 can't be built in a batch? No. You must accept the license before you can build the port, and you cannot interactively accept a license in non-interactive batch mode. See the commments in /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.licenses.mk for what to set in make.conf to automatically accept certain licenses. > > Aside from any possible impact of the license, the Makefile contains: > NO_BUILD= yes > so it ill never be packaged and redistributed. This is not an artifact of > the license and I don't know of the license would also block packaging. NO_BUILD means only that the configure and compile steps are not necessary for this port. The option you're thinking of is NO_PACKAGE. http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/porting-restrictions.html -- Fuzzy love, -CyberLeo Technical Administrator CyberLeo.Net Webhosting http://www.CyberLeo.Net Furry Peace! - http://www.fur.com/peace/