On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 11:39 PM, Ion-Mihai Tetcu <ite...@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Tue, 25 May 2010 00:25:02 +0000 (UTC) > Alejandro Pulver <alepul...@freebsd.org> wrote: > >> alepulver 2010-05-25 00:25:02 UTC >> >> FreeBSD ports repository >> >> Modified files: >> Mk bsd.port.mk >> Added files: >> Mk bsd.licenses.db.mk bsd.licenses.mk >> 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/PortsLicenseInfrastructure >> >> 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?
Thanks as well Alejandro for the hard work. Just out of curiosity, was any exploration done with existing work in the NetBSD side as far as existing licenses or naming schemes are concerned? I ask because if it seems logical, I would go with some of the names that they've established, because they're down to a fairly good level of granularity (even between the different BSDL versions). Thanks! -Garrett _______________________________________________ cvs-all@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "cvs-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
