Chris Gianelloni wrote: > On Wed, 2005-09-21 at 10:31 -0700, Matthew Marlowe wrote: > >>>>We could add a license, called "commercial" into the tree. This license >>>>would look like the following. >> >>I would definitly support adding "commercial" as a license group as part of >>GLEP23 implementation. > > > This isn't so much talking about GLEP23, but doing an interim > implementation *now* since I've not heard anything from GLEP23 for some > time. > > >>As part of adding any new commercial license to the tree, developers would >>have >>to add the license to the commercial group. >> >> >>>> While this will break completely >>>>interactive ebuilds until GLEP23 is fully implemented, a user can add >>>>the license to make.conf in an ACCEPT_LICENSE variable, to keep portage >>>>from asking again. >> >>We wouldnt break anything (hopefully) if we just do this as I specified above. > > > Except GLEP23 isn't implemented, so we cannot rely on it.
Is this just a one-off implementation until GLEP 23 is implemented, or something that will complement it? Whats going to happen to this data after GLEP23 gets implemented? I'd hate to see something added simply because its a quick one-off solution to make something work. I'd rather see people focus on the actual GLEP and moving it along. Of course, if this data will just be an added feature of GLEP23, I don't see a problem. -- Lance Albertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager --- GPG Public Key: <http://www.ramereth.net/lance.asc> Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1 4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742 ramereth/irc.freenode.net
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
