On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 11:26:19AM +0300, Philippe Trottier wrote: > Daniel Ostrow wrote: > > On Wed, 2005-09-21 at 18:54 +0100, Jos?? Carlos Cruz Costa wrote: > > > >>Hi everybody, > >> > >>If it's commercial, the company in question should (and must) allow an > >>ebuild for is product, like what happens with rpms and other packages. > >>Adding commercial ebuilds to portage is like tainting the kernel with > >>binary drivers. > >> > >>Maybe a better solution comes with gensync? If companies want ebuilds, > >>sure. They go to the "commercial" portage. Hell, even put a price on > >>maintaining those ebuilds. > >> > >>Remember that are a lot of people that don't want to use that kind of > >>software. There are people that doesn't have even xorg and have to > >>sync all the ebuilds from portage. > > > > This is what rsync excludes are for...there is no good reason to remove > > things like doom3 and UT2k4 from the tree for the sole reason that they > > are commercial packages. You don't want them...fine...exclude them. > > > > Possible to make the default a non-commercial ebuild rsync ? The exclude > file for rsync should be easy to make. That would be convenient for all > and allow purist to keep their system clean. Also would allow coders to > know what are the GNU weakest tools and work on them.
The rsync exclude list would be rather massive, and would require modification to the rsync generation. Also results in cvs users having a different tree then what those rsync'ing would get (not good imo). GLEP23's accept_license is (for me) the preferred solution; you have everything locally, the choice of what you use is yours (rather then a default upstream with a secondary repo of commercial). ~harring
pgp3Cg8Ctb5WO.pgp
Description: PGP signature
