cvs commit: ports/Mk bsd.licenses.db.mk bsd.licenses.mk bsd.port.mk

[Ion-Mihai Tetcu]

On Tue, 25 May 2010 00:25:02 +0000 (UTC)
Alejandro Pulver <alepulver at 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?



-- 
IOnut - Un^d^dregistered ;) FreeBSD "user"
  "Intellectual Property" is   nowhere near as valuable   as "Intellect"
FreeBSD committer -> itetcu at FreeBSD.org, PGP Key ID 057E9F8B493A297B
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-ports/attachments/20100525/e0ba5c87/signature.pgp