ports/176716: [patch] devel/boehm-gc update to 7.2d combining previous PRs

[Vitaly Magerya]

The following reply was made to PR ports/176716; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Vitaly Magerya <vmagerya at gmail.com>
To: Hirohisa Yamaguchi <umq at ueo.co.jp>
Cc: bug-followup at freebsd.org
Subject: Re: ports/176716: [patch] devel/boehm-gc update to 7.2d combining
 previous PRs
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2013 15:41:06 +0200

 Hirohisa Yamaguchi <umq at ueo.co.jp> wrote:
 > I agree that showing effective option only is better(patch updated).
 
 Looks good.
 
 > DOCS is one of pre-defined global options.
 > We do not need to have it in OPTIONS_DEFINE each port.
 > When NOPORTDOCS is not defined, DOCS will be defined.
 >  #  see ports/Mk/bsd.options.mk
 
 Right, but it's not shown in the 'make config' dialog (or is it
 a problem on my end?). The rule of thumb I'm following is this:
 if the port has any other options, or if enabling DOCS pulls in
 new dependencies, show DOCS in the dialog. Otherwise leave it
 silent.
 
 This is a minor point though; I don't really mind the way it
 works now.
 
 > I thought boehm-gc is X11-like license (wikipedia said so).
 > [...]
 > yes, libatomic_ops is GPLv2'ed.
 
 The problem here (aside from libatomic_ops) is that the wording
 of the license in README matches neither MIT/Expat [1,2] nor
 MIT/X11 [3] licenses.
 
 For example, boehm-gc require you to add a notice about modified
 code if you want to redistribute modifications, which is something
 MIT/Expat doesn't require.
 
 [1] http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:Expat
 [2] http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT
 [3] http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:X11