On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 05:29:22 -0800 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Donnie already stated he'd take a patch, so throw the patch his
| direction if you want things changed.
"If you don't want it to be broken, fix it yourself" is hardly a viable
QA policy...
--
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail
On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 12:43:18PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 04:37:44 -0800 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 12:27:39PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | > On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 08:05:49 + Steve Long
> | > | Secondly, how difficult wo
On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 04:37:44 -0800 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 12:27:39PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 08:05:49 + Steve Long
| > | Secondly, how difficult would it be for you to do what he asked? I
| > | know it's not your responsib
On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 12:27:39PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 08:05:49 + Steve Long
> | Secondly, how difficult would it be for you to do what he asked? I
> | know it's not your responsibility, I just want to know whether you
> | can do it fairly easily.
>
> It's a cou
On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 08:05:49 + Steve Long
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Ciaran: does the group stuff Donnie mentioned above fix this?
No. That's a massive abuse of groups. If people wanted to just accept
any licence necessary to install a particular package, they'd disable
licence filtering. Th
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> What, you really think that Donnie doesn't know how the X licence
>> handling situation breaks GLEP 23? Just how exactly is ACCEPT_LICENSE
>> usable when you have this?
>
> [ cropped groups of similar license combinations ]
>
> Pretty usable, whe
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Wed,
22 Nov 2006 08:12:28 -0500:
> Nope. The goal is for check_license to go away. Please read bug #152593
> to see the discussion that's been going on with this.
Upon reread, you are correct. I was not reading
On Wed, 2006-11-22 at 10:57 +0100, Marijn Schouten wrote:
> Duncan wrote:
> > Marien Zwart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Tue, 21
> > Nov 2006 19:36:35 +0100:
> >
> >> Since check_license was (I assume) originally added because it was
> >> required for certa
On Wed, 2006-11-22 at 04:52 +, Duncan wrote:
> Marien Zwart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Tue, 21
> Nov 2006 19:36:35 +0100:
>
> > Since check_license was (I assume) originally added because it was
> > required for certain (mostly games) ebuilds: is the p
Duncan wrote:
Marien Zwart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Tue, 21
Nov 2006 19:36:35 +0100:
Since check_license was (I assume) originally added because it was
required for certain (mostly games) ebuilds: is the possibility to accept
the license by putting a wi
Marien Zwart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Tue, 21
Nov 2006 19:36:35 +0100:
> Since check_license was (I assume) originally added because it was
> required for certain (mostly games) ebuilds: is the possibility to accept
> the license by putting a wildcard or g
Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on
Sat, 18 Nov 2006 08:53:36 +0100:
> ACCEPT_LICENSE
> --
>
> This GLEP proposes that a user be able to explicitly accept or decline
> licenses by editing a new variable ``ACCEPT_LICENSE`` in
> ``/etc/make.
12 matches
Mail list logo
