LPPL10 license consequences intended? (arabic/arabtex)

[CyberLeo Kitsana]

On 03/22/2014 02:27 PM, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 10:29 AM, John Marino <freebsd.contact at marino.st>wrote:
> 
>> In December, Nicola set the license for Arabtex to LPPL10.
>> The result is that the port is no longer packagable:
>>
>>> ====>> Ignoring arabic/arabtex: License LPPL10 needs confirmation, but
>> BATCH is defined
>>> build of /usr/ports/arabic/arabtex ended at Mon Mar 17 16:12:44 PDT 2014
>>
>> From a quick conversation on IRC, I got the idea that the license was
>> correct and many more Tex packages should also have this license.
>> If/when that happens, does that mean Tex packages are only to be built
>> from source?
>>
>> Is it correct that LPPL10 can't be built in a batch?

No. You must accept the license before you can build the port, and you
cannot interactively accept a license in non-interactive batch mode.

See the commments in /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.licenses.mk for what to set in
make.conf to automatically accept certain licenses.

> 
> Aside from any possible impact of the license, the Makefile contains:
> NO_BUILD=       yes
> so it ill never be packaged and redistributed. This is not an artifact of
> the license and I don't know of the license would also block packaging.

NO_BUILD means only that the configure and compile steps are not
necessary for this port.

The option you're thinking of is NO_PACKAGE.

http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/porting-restrictions.html

-- 
Fuzzy love,
-CyberLeo
Technical Administrator
CyberLeo.Net Webhosting
http://www.CyberLeo.Net
<CyberLeo at CyberLeo.Net>

Furry Peace! - http://www.fur.com/peace/