Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2016 18:36:53 +1000 From: Kubilay Kocak <koobs@FreeBSD.org> To: Mathieu Arnold <mat@FreeBSD.org>, Dmitry Marakasov <amdmi3@FreeBSD.org>, ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r421549 - in head: . Mk Message-ID: <400b08d4-51ae-8c5d-60ba-d0fc8e6a79a1@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4c02e149-78e3-51ad-34ad-15cfe0f8040a@FreeBSD.org> References: <201609081315.u88DF6vL044982@repo.freebsd.org> <190e2ef5-0f8c-efc3-bca1-7e5b541d3733@FreeBSD.org> <4c02e149-78e3-51ad-34ad-15cfe0f8040a@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 9/09/2016 7:06 AM, Mathieu Arnold wrote: > Le 08/09/2016 à 16:03, Kubilay Kocak a écrit : >> What if a piece of software doesn't have 'cleanly' (what is the >> actual definition we should use?) > > If you don't know, you just don't decide your self, you live it > absent, or ask upstream. > I agree, but this is precisely what I think will *not* happen with NONE as the name, and the exact reason for my original reply. UNDEFINED is less ambiguous and means 'we looked but we can't tell, so don't do anything (package, distribute) that may be illegal), which appears to be the intent of the behaviour/implementation that was committed. UNDEFINED is just a step more explicit than empty(LICENSE), which is something else we want. Someone has looked, its unclear, undefined, not documented, not explicit, <some-other-standard>, so set it (explicitly) as such. Then give maintainers/developers a 6 month heads-up on empty(LICENSE) becoming 'does not package/distribute source' as well, and watch ports upgrade to their actual LICENSE=, or LICENSE=UNDEFINED.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?400b08d4-51ae-8c5d-60ba-d0fc8e6a79a1>