Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 09:39:15 +0300 From: Ion-Mihai Tetcu <itetcu@FreeBSD.org> To: Alejandro Pulver <alepulver@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/Mk bsd.licenses.db.mk bsd.licenses.mk bsd.port.mk Message-ID: <20100525093915.03cfacfa@it.buh.tecnik93.com> In-Reply-To: <201005250025.o4P0P2Fj033764@repoman.freebsd.org> References: <201005250025.o4P0P2Fj033764@repoman.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--Sig_/o_M.VwBs7T9ivkw3hN68mAW Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 25 May 2010 00:25:02 +0000 (UTC) Alejandro Pulver <alepulver@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > alepulver 2010-05-25 00:25:02 UTC >=20 > FreeBSD ports repository >=20 > Modified files: > Mk bsd.port.mk=20 > Added files: > Mk bsd.licenses.db.mk bsd.licenses.mk=20 > Log: > - Add ports license framework, from GSoc 2008/2009. Thanks for your work on this! > - Feel free to populate bsd.licenses.db.mk and adjust the variables: > NO_LICENSES_INSTALL and NO_LICENSES_DIALOGS (default to off). > - For more information see http://wiki.freebsd.org/PortsLicenseInfrastr= ucture=20 > > Reviewed by: erwin You really need an 'Approved by: portmgr@' for bsd.port* commits. The fact that one of us has review it is a different matter. Also please commit the CHANGES with verbose info, or at least a pointer to the docs. I usually read the commit mails, but if I'm away or swamped with work for a few days, I don't have the time to read all the backlog so I look in CHANGES for infrastructure changes, like I look in UPDATING for specific ports changes. While we're here, could you please prepare a chapter on this for the Porter's Handbook? I've read the comments in the two license files and I read the wiki page and I found them long and a bit unclear. For the long part, I guess there is nothing to be done, I guess. But after reading them I still don't know how this framework should be used (both as maintainer and user). I'll read the code next :) but expecting all maintainers to do this is a bit unrealistic. A few examples would be nice. User-side: - with no customization, what gets installed silently and what has to be approved manually? - how does this interact with unattended builds, tindy, etc.? On pointy and tindy we can build ports marked NO_PACKAGE, for testing purposes, by defining FORCE_PACKAGE. Do we have an equivalent? Maintainer-side: - what's an "auto-accept" LICENSE_PERMS? When (for what kind of licenses) should it be defined? We need a common policy here. - we really need a portlint check for the typo 'LICENCE' (I'll add one in QAT anyway). - For common licenses I suppose we only install one copy, of them? Or we install one for each port? - how does license installing interacts, if any, with NOPORTDOCS? --=20 IOnut - Un^d^dregistered ;) FreeBSD "user" "Intellectual Property" is nowhere near as valuable as "Intellect" FreeBSD committer -> itetcu@FreeBSD.org, PGP Key ID 057E9F8B493A297B --Sig_/o_M.VwBs7T9ivkw3hN68mAW Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAkv7cJsACgkQJ7GIuiH/oeV6yQCgpqSMQ8XTVskGXH6DBCfVlblu Ay4AnAuvzok6r4M+0d7Z1yt7JTnecSlL =tUUX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/o_M.VwBs7T9ivkw3hN68mAW--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100525093915.03cfacfa>