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

[Alejandro Pulver]

On 5/25/2010 3:39 AM, Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote:

> You really need an 'Approved by: portmgr@' for bsd.port* commits. The
> fact that one of us has review it is a different matter.
>

Sorry, I'll send the patch to portmgr@ first the next time.

> 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.
>

Done.

> 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.
>

I'll start writing a chapter for it after policies are established for 
some aspects (see below).

> User-side:
> - with no customization, what gets installed silently and what has to
>    be approved manually?

If NO_LICENSES_INSTALL is undefined, the following files will be created:

- Catalog: share/licenses/${PKGNAME}/catalog.mk
   Value of internal variables at the time of installation (chosen
   license, redistribution permissions, etc), can be included by 'make'
   (but not currently used).

- Report: share/licenses/${PKGNAME}/LICENSE
   Human readable description. For now it references the other
   license files installed in the same directory, but if the license
   is "known" (in which case no other files are installed) mentions it
   should be in the "license pool".

If we add "known" licenses in, say /usr/ports/Licenses, this file could 
be removed (the only information it provides is, in case there multiple 
licenses, if they must be agreed together or only one of them - note 
that this information is also in the "catalog").

- Actual licenses: share/licenses/${PKGNAME}/<license files>

Also if preferred, the license "catalog" could be placed in /var/db, but 
may require changes to pkg_add, etc.

> - 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?
>

No, I'll add one. Does IGNORE_LICENSE sound OK? If I understand 
correctly, it should behave as if it was approved.

> 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.

It was to create a middle-ground between accepting everything and being 
a "license paranoid" (the latter is provided as an option). I think most 
common licenses should have it, and removed from, say, ports with 
NO_CDROM, RESTRICTED, etc (in general the ones that appear in 
ports/LEGAL; actually one of the goals for this project was to replace it).

> - we really need a portlint check for the typo 'LICENCE' (I'll add one
>    in QAT anyway).

Yes (in fact, in my native language - Spanish -, it's spelled almost 
that way - as "licencia").

> - For common licenses I suppose we only install one copy, of them? Or
>    we install one for each port?

IMO it would be good to have a /usr/ports/Licenses or similar directory.

> - how does license installing interacts, if any, with NOPORTDOCS?
>

It doesn't.

Regards,
Ale