[gentoo-dev] aging ebuilds with unstable keywords

[gentoo-dev] aging ebuilds with unstable keywords

[Daniel Ahlberg]

Hi,

This is an automatically created email message.
http://gentoo.tamperd.net/stable has just been updated with 14406 ebuilds.

The page shows results from a number of tests that are run against the ebuilds. The tests are:
* if a version has been masked for 30 days or more.
* if an arch was in KEYWORDS in an older ebuild, but not in the newer ones.
* if SRC_URI contains hosts specified in thirdpartymirrors.
* if ebuild uses patch instead of epatch.
* if ebuild sets S to ${WORKDIR}/${P}.
* if ebuild redefines P, PV, PN or PF.
* if ebuild doesn't inherit eutils when it uses functions from eutils.
* if ebuild doesn't inherit flag-o-matic when it uses functions from flag-o-matic.
* if ebuild has $HOMEPAGE in SRC_URI (cosmetic).
* if ebuild has $PN in SRC_URI (cosmetic).
* if ebuild forces -fPIC flag to CFLAGS.
* if ebuild has deprecated WANT_AUTO(CONF|MAKE)_?_?.
* if ebuild uses is-flag -fPIC, should be changed to has_fpic.
* if ebuild appends $RDEPEND or $DEPEND to $RDEPEND or $DEPEND to $DEPEND.
* if ebuild has arch keyword(s) in iuse.
* if ebuild overrides MAKEOPTS.
* if ebuild has automake, autoconf or libtool in RDEPEND.
* if ebuild exists in ChangeLog.
* if ebuild installs COPYING and/or INSTALL into doc.

The database is updated once a day and this email is sent once a week.
Questions and comments may be directed to aliz@gentoo.org.

Script has been running for 372 minutes.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] aging ebuilds with unstable keywords

[Andrej Kacian]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 421 bytes --]

On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 08:12:25 +0100 (CET)
Daniel Ahlberg <aliz@gentoo.org> wrote:

> This is an automatically created email message.
> http://gentoo.tamperd.net/stable has just been updated with 14406 ebuilds.

Just FYI, it doesn't display correctly in Opera - I can provide screenshots if
you want.

-- 
Andrej "Ticho" Kacian <ticho at gentoo dot org>
Gentoo Linux Developer - net-mail, antivirus, sound, x86

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: aging ebuilds with unstable keywords

[R Hill]

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.

--de.


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: aging ebuilds with unstable keywords

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 486 bytes --]

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.

Regards,
Petteri

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 256 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: aging ebuilds with unstable keywords

[Andrej Kacian]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 629 bytes --]

On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 20:39:43 -0600
R Hill <dirtyepic.sk@gmail.com> 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.

Note that some of the packages caught by this test also install non-generic
(thus actually useful) INSTALL document.

-- 
Andrej "Ticho" Kacian <ticho at gentoo dot org>
Gentoo Linux Developer - net-mail, antivirus, sound, x86

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: aging ebuilds with unstable keywords

[R Hill]

Andrej Kacian wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 20:39:43 -0600
> R Hill <dirtyepic.sk@gmail.com> 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.
> 
> Note that some of the packages caught by this test also install non-generic
> (thus actually useful) INSTALL document.

Yep, i did notice that.  Most of them on this list are, but i'm still weeding
through them.

--de.

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Installing COPYING or LICENSE files

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 816 bytes --]

Petteri Räty 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.
> 
> Regards,
> Petteri

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.

Regards,
Petteri


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 256 bytes --]

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

[Drake Wyrm]

[-- 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 --]

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

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1674 bytes --]

Drake Wyrm wrote:
> 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.
> 

I am not out to ban certain file names. Just for example the copies of
GPL-2 or the general INSTALL file. If the file does contain useful
information I am all for installing it. It's just that usually the
INSTALL file is not really useful unless you are manually installing the
package from sources and then you will have the INSTALL file in there
with the sources.

Regards,
Petteri

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 256 bytes --]

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

[Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 849 bytes --]

On Monday 26 December 2005 15:02, Petteri Räty wrote:
> It's just that usually the
> INSTALL file is not really useful unless you are manually installing the
> package from sources and then you will have the INSTALL file in there
> with the sources.
Yeah, and in that case I usually judge it useless and avoid installing it.
For the (rare) exceptions, I'd rather newdoc it with another name such as 
SETUP or something like that, would probably also help users to find useful 
informations.

I'd add ABOUT-NLS files to the list of useless, as that usually just reflect 
the status of GNU project translations on a given gettext release... I'd 
rather just see it installed by gettext package itself.

-- 
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/
Gentoo/ALT lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

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

[Carsten Lohrke]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 790 bytes --]

On Monday 26 December 2005 14:57, Drake Wyrm wrote:
> 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.

Removing these files and relying on LICENSE=foo in the ebuild could be seen as 
a copyright violation. There are lots of samples in /usr/src/licenses that 
aren't generic, but include a copyright notice naming the authors of a 
particular piece of software, but it doesn't match with all packages under 
this license of course. Take ZLIB as example. Since I'm not a lawyer I might 
be wrong, but me thinks it would make sense to ask one.


Carsten



[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

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

[Mike Frysinger]

On Monday 26 December 2005 08:24, Petteri Räty wrote:
> Petteri Räty 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.
>
> 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.

there isnt one but i'm all for not installing COPYING/LICENSE/ABOUT-NLS files

i dont mind the INSTALL/etc... files because often they contain information 
that is useful for things other than just configure/make
-mike

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

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

[R Hill]

Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> On Monday 26 December 2005 14:57, Drake Wyrm wrote:
>> 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.

I found that as well, and made sure to only bug people about generic files.  In
most of those cases COPYING/LICENSE is generic while INSTALL was custom.

> Removing these files and relying on LICENSE=foo in the ebuild could be seen as 
> a copyright violation. There are lots of samples in /usr/src/licenses that 
> aren't generic, but include a copyright notice naming the authors of a 
> particular piece of software, but it doesn't match with all packages under 
> this license of course. Take ZLIB as example. Since I'm not a lawyer I might 
> be wrong, but me thinks it would make sense to ask one.

AFAIK most licenses need to be included with the distribution of the source, not
installed on the system after compilation.  But I could be wrong too.

--de.

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

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

[Mike Frysinger]

On Tuesday 27 December 2005 02:01, R Hill wrote:
> AFAIK most licenses need to be included with the distribution of the
> source, not installed on the system after compilation.  But I could be
> wrong too.

anyone who installs a program in portage already has a copy of the license on 
their system ... $PORTDIR/licenses/
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

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

[Brian Harring]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 776 bytes --]

On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 02:08:25AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday 27 December 2005 02:01, R Hill wrote:
> > AFAIK most licenses need to be included with the distribution of the
> > source, not installed on the system after compilation.  But I could be
> > wrong too.
> 
> anyone who installs a program in portage already has a copy of the license on 
> their system ... $PORTDIR/licenses/

Assuming the tree is locally available (remote, or binpkg's used to 
generate images)...

Lets put it this way; if ebuilds are specifically filtering it out on 
their own, nobody who wants the licenses install has them.

If they're installed via the ebuild, and removed via INSTALL_MASK, 
everybody can get what they want.  So why nuke by default?
~harring

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

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

[Mike Frysinger]

On Tuesday 27 December 2005 02:23, Brian Harring wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 02:08:25AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Tuesday 27 December 2005 02:01, R Hill wrote:
> > > AFAIK most licenses need to be included with the distribution of the
> > > source, not installed on the system after compilation.  But I could be
> > > wrong too.
> >
> > anyone who installs a program in portage already has a copy of the
> > license on their system ... $PORTDIR/licenses/
>
> Assuming the tree is locally available (remote, or binpkg's used to
> generate images)...
>
> Lets put it this way; if ebuilds are specifically filtering it out on
> their own, nobody who wants the licenses install has them.

if the user has gone through lengths to cut down on filesize by cutting out 
their portage tree, then chances are pretty solid that they are cutting out 
things like /usr/share/{doc,man,info} as well which means even if an ebuild 
installed the file, it'd be cut anyways from the final filesystem

> If they're installed via the ebuild, and removed via INSTALL_MASK,
> everybody can get what they want.  So why nuke by default?

because it's pointless duplication ... the case is either the file is 
installed in both places, or not at all ... the people who trim their portage 
tree but not /usr/share/doc probably consists of those who do not know how to 
trim /usr/share/doc
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

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

[Harald van Dijk]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1106 bytes --]

On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 01:01:10AM -0600, R Hill wrote:
> > Removing these files and relying on LICENSE=foo in the ebuild could be seen as 
> > a copyright violation. There are lots of samples in /usr/src/licenses that 
> > aren't generic, but include a copyright notice naming the authors of a 
> > particular piece of software, but it doesn't match with all packages under 
> > this license of course. Take ZLIB as example. Since I'm not a lawyer I might 
> > be wrong, but me thinks it would make sense to ask one.
> 
> AFAIK most licenses need to be included with the distribution of the source, not
> installed on the system after compilation.  But I could be wrong too.

There are exceptions, a popular one being BSD.

    * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
    * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
    * documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

As a quick example, iputils is BSD-licensed and does not install or
reproduce its license, so does this cause problems for iputils binpkgs?

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

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

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1457 bytes --]

Harald van Dijk wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 01:01:10AM -0600, R Hill wrote:
> 
>>>Removing these files and relying on LICENSE=foo in the ebuild could be seen as 
>>>a copyright violation. There are lots of samples in /usr/src/licenses that 
>>>aren't generic, but include a copyright notice naming the authors of a 
>>>particular piece of software, but it doesn't match with all packages under 
>>>this license of course. Take ZLIB as example. Since I'm not a lawyer I might 
>>>be wrong, but me thinks it would make sense to ask one.
>>
>>AFAIK most licenses need to be included with the distribution of the source, not
>>installed on the system after compilation.  But I could be wrong too.
> 
> 
> There are exceptions, a popular one being BSD.
> 
>     * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
>     * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
>     * documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
> 
> As a quick example, iputils is BSD-licensed and does not install or
> reproduce its license, so does this cause problems for iputils binpkgs?

We are not redistributing anything in binary form when installing
programs. This all happens on the users computers. We are distributing
upstream source tarballs verbatim of course. If the license should be
installed, shouldn't the upstream make install take care of it then?

Regards,
Petteri


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 256 bytes --]

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

[Harald van Dijk]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1768 bytes --]

On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 12:32:25PM +0200, Petteri Räty wrote:
> Harald van Dijk wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 01:01:10AM -0600, R Hill wrote:
> > 
> >>>Removing these files and relying on LICENSE=foo in the ebuild could be seen as 
> >>>a copyright violation. There are lots of samples in /usr/src/licenses that 
> >>>aren't generic, but include a copyright notice naming the authors of a 
> >>>particular piece of software, but it doesn't match with all packages under 
> >>>this license of course. Take ZLIB as example. Since I'm not a lawyer I might 
> >>>be wrong, but me thinks it would make sense to ask one.
> >>
> >>AFAIK most licenses need to be included with the distribution of the source, not
> >>installed on the system after compilation.  But I could be wrong too.
> > 
> > 
> > There are exceptions, a popular one being BSD.
> > 
> >     * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
> >     * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
> >     * documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
> > 
> > As a quick example, iputils is BSD-licensed and does not install or
> > reproduce its license, so does this cause problems for iputils binpkgs?
> 
> We are not redistributing anything in binary form when installing
> programs.

Of course, but we are redistributing programs in binary form in exactly
the same state as when installing them, via stages and live/packagecds.

> If the license should be
> installed, shouldn't the upstream make install take care of it then?

iputils doesn't do a make install, and if it did, it would still be
reasonable if that didn't copy the license, since the users who run that
themselves don't need it.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

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

[Carsten Lohrke]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 374 bytes --]

On Tuesday 27 December 2005 08:08, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> anyone who installs a program in portage already has a copy of the license
> on their system ... $PORTDIR/licenses/

My point was that it is often not the license of the copyright holder, because 
the copyright notice included in many licenses names the author of a specific 
application.


Carsten




[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

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

[Harald van Dijk]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 798 bytes --]

On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 03:57:55PM +0100, Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 12:20:39PM +0100, Harald van Dijk wrote:
> > iputils doesn't do a make install, and if it did, it would still be
> > reasonable if that didn't copy the license, since the users who run that
> > themselves don't need it.
> 
> I don't really see the big difference (regarding this issue) in
> manually installing a package or using Gentoo Portage for installing
> it?
> 
> Why would people who install it via a script in Gentoo Portage want
> the useless files installed - when they wouldn't want them installed
> when doing a manual install?

Right, end users don't need them, regardless of package manager. But as
I mentioned in my previous message, ebuilds are not only for end users.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

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

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1205 bytes --]

Petteri Räty wrote:
> Petteri Räty 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.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Petteri
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Regards,
> Petteri
> 

Looking at the thread I don't see anyone opposing not installing for
example a copy of GPL-2 or the generic INSTALL file. So could we write a
policy somewhere not to these duplicated files when we are not legally
required to install these files? That should satisfy any conserns raised.

Regards,
Petteri


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 256 bytes --]

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

[Henrik Brix Andersen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 667 bytes --]

On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 12:20:39PM +0100, Harald van Dijk wrote:
> iputils doesn't do a make install, and if it did, it would still be
> reasonable if that didn't copy the license, since the users who run that
> themselves don't need it.

I don't really see the big difference (regarding this issue) in
manually installing a package or using Gentoo Portage for installing
it?

Why would people who install it via a script in Gentoo Portage want
the useless files installed - when they wouldn't want them installed
when doing a manual install?

Regards,
Brix
-- 
Henrik Brix Andersen <brix@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Metadistribution | Mobile computing herd

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 211 bytes --]