svn commit: r320152 - head/net/v6eval

[Hiroki Sato]

Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe at FreeBSD.ORG> wrote
  in <20130607074237.GA50645 at FreeBSD.org>:

da> On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 04:18:15PM +0900, Hiroki Sato wrote:
da> > Andrej Zverev <az at FreeBSD.org> wrote
da> > az> New Revision: 320152
da> > az> URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/320152
da> > az>
da> > az> Log:
da> > az>   - License framework already have license text of standart licenses
da> > az> [...]
da> > az>   PR:		ports/178866
da> > az>   Submitted by:	az
da> > az>   Reviewed by:	maintainer (timeout)
da> > az>
da> > az> Modified:
da> > az>   head/net/v6eval/Makefile   (contents, props changed)
da> > az>
da> > az>  LICENSE=	BSD
da> > az> -LICENSE_FILE=	${WRKSRC}/COPYRIGHT
da> >
da> >  Please revert this.  I disagree with removal of LICENSE_FILE.
da>
da> Can you elaborate on why you insist on standard license file to be exlicitly
da> set instead of using the one from the pool?  I know that some of us are in
da> the middle of cleaning the ports tree from such cases.

 Just because it includes copyright notice and not exactly the same as
 the standard template.  I have converted several ports to use
 LICENSE_FILE in order to make the packages include the license files
 which contain copyright notice, and to remove the license files from
 PORTDOCS.  Is this usage incorrect?

 If this is not allowed, I am wondering why we allow specifying
 LICENSE_FILE for well-known licenses.

-- Hiroki
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/svn-ports-head/attachments/20130607/af3a0d6c/attachment.sig>