From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Mjg3x-0001YZ-5d for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 04 Sep 2009 21:11:17 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D20A1E060F; Fri, 4 Sep 2009 21:11:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtprelay10.ispgateway.de (smtprelay10.ispgateway.de [80.67.31.33]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2055E060F for ; Fri, 4 Sep 2009 21:11:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [85.179.5.101] (helo=[192.168.0.3]) by smtprelay10.ispgateway.de with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1Mjg3u-0005Wy-Jg for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Fri, 04 Sep 2009 23:11:14 +0200 Message-ID: <4AA18272.7070509@hartwork.org> Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2009 23:11:14 +0200 From: Sebastian Pipping User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (X11/20090820) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Add operator + for licenses (EAPI-4 ?) References: <4A9C4AD6.9080505@gentoo.org> <4A9C853D.8050003@hartwork.org> <4AA03037.7000203@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <4AA03037.7000203@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Df-Sender: 874396 X-Archives-Salt: 4d9f4eff-5a6c-4c56-81a0-fc10e4f281ec X-Archives-Hash: 88b1d554d7e070a63c8339d0a03cab6d Mounir Lamouri wrote: >> However I do notice that "GPL-2+" could make things easier. >> Why not introduce a license group for it like @GPL-2+ or so, instead? >> That would be transparent and use existing means. >> > I don't understand where the black magic is. It would be in the implementation and in the non-transparency. How can a user understabnd that "GPL-2+" refers to a group of license files but "GPL-2" refers to a single file? He may guess but it's not obvious, especially if it hasn#t been like that in the past, which is the case. > However, a > group will not add the information in the ebuild. In other words, I will > have GPL-2 and GPL-3 with GPL-2+ in ACCEPT_LICENSE but I will not have > GPL-2+ packages if i set only GPL-3 in ACCEPT_LICENSE. I propose support for license groups in ebuilds then, I guess. Sebastian