Adding an "only-free" option to the ports system

[Julian H. Stacey]

Scot Hetzel wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 11:35 PM, Martin Hanson
> <greencoppermine at yandex.com> wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > This is a suggestion.
> >
> > Would it not be possible to add a feature to the ports system which
> > enables the user to choose to avoid non Open Source ports?
> >
> 
> The feature already exists, see /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.licenses.mk and
> bsd.licenses.db.mk
> 
> # LICENSES_ACCEPTED - Accepted licenses.
> # LICENSES_REJECTED - Rejected licenses.
> # LICENSES_GROUPS_ACCEPTED - Accepted license groups.
> # LICENSES_GROUPS_REJECTED - Rejected license groups.
> 
> Note: not all ports list which license they support.

Licences wouldn be a non-intuitative misnomer,
that would not cover the binary aspect of what Martin wrote:

> Some ports are obvious binary blobs, but other ports are less obvious.

I'd like FreeBSD to have:
	mk/ declarator		BINARY_LACKING_SOURCE
	environment variable	NO_BINARY_LACKING_SOURCE

I looked into this a while ago:
- there was no such flag,
- there were a lot of ports that installed unverifiable binaries into
  /usr/local/ (& perhaps elsewhere eg BLOB drivers), 
- I recall I found maybe 40+ ports, then I stopped searching, 
FreeBSD should add an advisory flag so we can document in Makefiles.

Such a flag would make no difference to those who don't care about binaries
without source, but would enable better security for those who do care.
Think of the idea & defaults as an advisory similar to NO_CDROM.

Cheers,
Julian
-- 
Julian Stacey, BSD Linux Unix C Sys Eng Consultant Munich http://berklix.com
 Indent previous with "> ".  Interleave reply paragraphs like a play script.
 Send plain text, not quoted-printable, HTML, base64, or multipart/alternative.