From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EIop4-0005vv-P5 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 23 Sep 2005 14:46:47 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id j8NEdH5g002500; Fri, 23 Sep 2005 14:39:17 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id j8NEaIZm011431 for ; Fri, 23 Sep 2005 14:36:18 GMT Received: from cpe-65-26-255-237.wi.res.rr.com ([65.26.255.237] helo=nightcrawler) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.43) id 1EIol3-0001hS-OT for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Fri, 23 Sep 2005 14:42:37 +0000 Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 09:42:51 -0500 From: Brian Harring To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] "Commercial" software in portage Message-ID: <20050923144251.GC18375@nightcrawler> References: <20050921172801.42BBEF5C20@mail.deploylinux.net> <3f85ef27050921105464c82c51@mail.gmail.com> <1127325642.7832.32.camel@Memoria.anyarch.net> <43326AAB.2050309@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="adJ1OR3c6QgCpb/j" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <43326AAB.2050309@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-Archives-Salt: fce22634-b877-4c3f-a454-3c11e9c5fd66 X-Archives-Hash: 8e32561b22c7c6696f1f2cad0863691a --adJ1OR3c6QgCpb/j Content-Type: text/plain; charset="en_US.UTF-8" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 11:26:19AM +0300, Philippe Trottier wrote: > Daniel Ostrow wrote: > > On Wed, 2005-09-21 at 18:54 +0100, Jos=C3=A9 Carlos Cruz Costa wrote: > >=20 > >>Hi everybody, > >> > >>If it's commercial, the company in question should (and must) allow an > >>ebuild for is product, like what happens with rpms and other packages. > >>Adding commercial ebuilds to portage is like tainting the kernel with > >>binary drivers.=20 > >> > >>Maybe a better solution comes with gensync? If companies want ebuilds, > >>sure. They go to the "commercial" portage. Hell, even put a price on > >>maintaining those ebuilds. > >> > >>Remember that are a lot of people that don't want to use that kind of > >>software. There are people that doesn't have even xorg and have to > >>sync all the ebuilds from portage.=20 > >=20 > > This is what rsync excludes are for...there is no good reason to remove > > things like doom3 and UT2k4 from the tree for the sole reason that they > > are commercial packages. You don't want them...fine...exclude them. > >=20 >=20 > Possible to make the default a non-commercial ebuild rsync ? The exclude > file for rsync should be easy to make. That would be convenient for all > and allow purist to keep their system clean. Also would allow coders to > know what are the GNU weakest tools and work on them. The rsync exclude list would be rather massive, and would require=20 modification to the rsync generation. Also results in cvs users=20 having a different tree then what those rsync'ing would get (not good=20 imo). GLEP23's accept_license is (for me) the preferred solution; you have=20 everything locally, the choice of what you use is yours (rather then a=20 default upstream with a secondary repo of commercial). ~harring --adJ1OR3c6QgCpb/j Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDNBRrvdBxRoA3VU0RAlVMAKCvg9nJjL/NzMLMX7N7eCeWOV7TGgCg3G14 sKBtplSabQOnlmB8QgFREMU= =y2mg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --adJ1OR3c6QgCpb/j-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list