Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 17:23:02 -0700 (PDT) From: papowell@astart.com To: darren@nighttide.net, papowell@astart.com Cc: andrews@technologist.com, arch@FreeBSD.ORG, drosih@rpi.edu, imp@village.org, nik@FreeBSD.ORG, sheldonh@uunet.co.za, will@almanac.yi.org Subject: Re: Bringing LPRng into FreeBSD? - License Issues Message-ID: <200007100023.RAA21882@h4.private>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > What is wrong with retaining the ability to display copyright > > information from the command line options? What undue burden does > > it place on commercial users of FreeBSD? And if they modify the > > Yet another license variation. > > > code, wouldn't it be good Systems Engineering Practice to have > > some way to verify that? > > They have to retain the copyright info in the source so the information is > there. > > The package is in ports and it doesn't seem anyone is advocating that it > be removed. If it is to be in the primary distribution then it should have > the same, not the same with a proviso, license, if at all possible. If it > can not have the same license then there needs to be some hugely overiding > need to bring in into the core. That doesn't seem to be the case. > > ______________________________________________________________________ > Darren Henderson darren@nighttide.net > > Help fight junk e-mail, visit http://www.cauce.org/ > The problem is that you can have binary only distributions, and then you cannot see the version information. You may also have versions that are 'invisible' and cannot even examine the binaries for license information. For example, you can put together a PicoBSD system for a say, firewall, that does not have any easy command line method to determine the version of software being run. I have run into this too many times... Let me explain how I would put the LPRng distribution into the FreeBSD Project. Say for the sake of argument you put it into the 'contrib' tree: /usr/src/contrib/LPRng/Makefile <--- LPRng-VERSION/.... <- standard distribution (You would also have this in the Ports Tree: /usr/ports/sysutils/LPRng/Makefile work/LPRng-VERSION <- untarred image ) To put the latest version of LPRng into the contrib tree you would do: cd /usr/src/contrib/LPRng rm -rf LPRng-OldVERSION tar zxvf LPRng-VERSION make newversion VERSION=LPRng-VERSION <- target in Makefile At this point all of the Makefiles are set up for simply doing: cd /usr/src/contrib/LPRng make all install Now you might wonder about the 'make newversion' stuff. Here is a 'toy template' of the makefile that would be used: # $FreeBSD: src/usr.sbin/lpr/Makefile,v 1.5 1999/08/28 01:16:45 peter Exp $ SUBDIR= ${VERSION} VERSION=LPRng-VERSION CONFIGURE_OPTIONS=......... BSD_MAKE=YES # Use this to update Makefile for the latest version update: perl -spi 's/^VERSION=.*/VERSION=${VERSION}/' Makefile # Use this after you have updated the Makefile with the new # version configure: cd $(VERSION); ./configure ${CONFIGURE_OPTIONS} newversion: # you want to use the update Makefile ${MAKE} update ${MAKE} configure .include <bsd.subdir.mk> Ummm... any resemblance between this code and the code in the ports distribution Makefile is intentional. OK, now what about the fact that LPRng uses (by default) GNU Make? The BSD_MAKE=YES will cause configure to invoke a perl script that updates the GNU Make Makefile to the BSD Make Makefile. Turns out that there are only a very few places where things are different and I have been through this once already. Patrick Powell Astart Technologies, papowell@astart.com 9475 Chesapeake Drive, Suite D, Network and System San Diego, CA 92123 Consulting 858-874-6543 FAX 858-279-8424 LPRng - Print Spooler (http://www.astart.com) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200007100023.RAA21882>