[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: new global USE flag "srcdist"

[Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2274 bytes --]

>>>>> On Thu, 2 Jan 2014, Ryan Hill wrote:

> I've always believed that when it comes down to it all Gentoo
> basically does is provide a link to some source code and a script
> to build and install it. Unless we violate someone's license by
> redistributing that source then we really don't have to worry about
> it, and as you said we already have mechanisms to deal with that.
> What the user does with that source is their business, and they are
> solely responsible for following the terms of the license(s).
> IIRC this is the stance we took back in 2006 with the cdrtools
> debacle [1].
> [1]  http://lwn.net/Articles/199061/

I completely agree with you.

> So I don't understand why we would have to remove anything from the
> tarballs. Unless there's a license in there that forbids mirroring
> then there's no need to list other licenses that aren't relevant.
> The user wants to know what conditions he needs to follow to build
> and use the package, not what the tarball happen to contain. If you
> tell him that he can't install something because of a license on a
> piece of code that is never used, built, or installed, he isn't
> going to be very happy.

IMHO, we normally shouldn't remove anything from tarballs. We have
mirror and fetch restrictions which should cover most cases where we
are not allowed to redistribute a distfile.

> Wouldn't that just prevent you from installing the package
> altogether? Some people might be okay with that, but if it's a
> package you need then you are forced to choose between either
> disabling the USE flag or stop filtering the license for that
> package. Either way you end up with non-distributable stuff in your
> distfiles.

Of course, the srcdist USE flag would be disabled by default, so it
would make no difference for users' ACCEPT_LICENSE filtering. See it
as a way to provide additional information about license terms of
distfiles, or the part of distfiles that is not going to be installed.

> Maybe we could add RESTRICT=srcdist which would cause ebuilds to
> save their distfiles in a separate directory controlled by
> PORTDIR_NODIST or something. If the variable is unset then it's
> business as usual.

Interesting idea, but how would RESTRICT=srcdist be different from
RESTRICT=mirror?

Ulrich

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]