Re: [gentoo-dev] Installing COPYING or LICENSE files

[Drake Wyrm <wyrm@haell.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1405 bytes --]

Petteri R??ty <betelgeuse@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Petteri R??ty wrote:
> > R Hill wrote:
> >>Daniel Ahlberg wrote:
> >>>* if ebuild installs COPYING and/or INSTALL into doc.
> >>
> >>Is this actually important?  There are a hell of a lot of ebuilds that fail
> >>under this rule.  I'd like to start filing patches for some of the packages in
> >>this list so I'm interested in knowing what's worth fixing and what's being
> >>pedantic.
> > 
> > Not a blocker but just useless. Filing patches for ebuilds doing this is
> > greatly appreciated by at least me.
> 
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=113680
> 
> So is there a policy about [not] installing the COPYING or LICENSE files
> already? If there isn't one, I propose we make a decision about this to
> have uniform behaviour across the tree.

You're going to be hard-pressed to get any kind of consensus on this
issue. Many dev seems to feel that the license belongs there. In some
cases the COPYING, LICENSE, and/or INSTALL files contain, not boilerplate
drivel, but actually unique, useful information.

Certainly there could be value in leaving out _yet_another_ copy of the
GPL and the banal INSTALL, but even that wouldn't justify a universal
ban on certain file names.

-- 
In the depths of my heart, I can't help being convinced
that my fellow men, with a few exceptions, are worthless.
  -- Sigmund Freud

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]