Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 07:10:02 -0800 (PST) From: Mikhail Teterin <mi@kot.ne.mediaone.net> To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports/12722: New port: AT&T's DjVu library for scanned images Message-ID: <200003301510.HAA17464@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR ports/12722; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Mikhail Teterin <mi@kot.ne.mediaone.net> To: Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami <asami@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports/12722: New port: AT&T's DjVu library for scanned images Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 09:29:15 -0500 (EST) Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami once stated: = * Can't you just say "make fetch" if a things is marked IS_INTERACTIVE? = =No. Some fetches are interactive. I see... Time for a new variable :) = * =Um, can't you put the license part only in REQ? Then the script run = * =after it can do whatever you want it to. = * = * I can, but the license needs to be accepted before the source is = * extracted. Take a look for yourself... = =So REQ needs to be called before extraction. Why is this a problem? One -- because it needs to be called after extraction (in post-extract). Two -- because it will extract the source code from itself, which is not what a package installation supposed to do. Three, the license only needs to be accepted by an entity building the thing from the source. That entity (FreeBSD) is then allowed to distribute the binary and is NOT required to ask for license. So it does not need to be in the package. = * =Also, I wasn't paying attention to the discussion, but what happens = * =when the user installs it from a package? = * = * That's the thing. The license allows redistribution in source or = * otherwise, even as part of another product, even for (reasonable = * fee) -- try to build it and read for yourself :) = =Sorry if I wasn't clear -- my question was, don't you need to display =the license when the user installs it from a package? It was me, who was not clear :) No, this time, FreeBSD is the licensee, who builds the binary out of AT&T's source code and distributes the said binary. The licensee is not required to present the license to its users. =Creating a REQ file like = =#!/bin/sh =echo "djvu license terms" =echo "at&t owns this and you owe them a pat in the back" =echo -n "do you accept? (y/n) => " =read ans =case $ans in = Yy*) = exit 0 = ;; = *) = echo "oops" = exit 1 =esac = =and calling it from pre-extract will take care of both the port and the =package, no? No. This may be put in there for the package, if we feel we must (I don't), but it does not help the port. I tried to convince you to take a look yourself, but here is what's happening. The tarball consists of only 4 files: ATTLICENSE ReadMe RunMe RunMe.asc To get the source, one needs to run RunMe, which asks to accept a license. Which is why this is in the post-extract target. Upon acceptance, it extracts the source code from itself and removes itself. Very clever. Doing this at the package install time is wrong, IMHO. Yours, -mi To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200003301510.HAA17464>