Re: [gentoo-dev] Should mirror restriction imply bindist restriction?

[Michael Weber <xmw@gentoo.org>]

On 04/26/2013 09:23 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 26 Apr 2013, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> 
>>> Currently RESTRICT=mirror and RESTRICT=bindist are independent of
>>> each other. I wonder if the former should imply the latter.
>>>
>>> Is there any package where the files in SRC_URI cannot be mirrored
>>> (i.e., redistributed), but where the built package can be
>>> distributed?
> 
>> i've used RESTRICT=mirror in the past when the files were really
>> large (like games or toolchain source tarballs) and upstream already
>> had a good mirroring system. in both cases, there was no binary
>> redistribution restrictions.
> 
>> so my answer would be no: we have two independent knobs and let's
>> keep them that way.
> 
> Right. And as was pointed to me on IRC, another legitimate case for
> mirror restriction are packages in overlays whose distfiles are not on
> mirrors. Then it obviously makes no sense to check mirrors for it.

And sunrise suggested to not set it, to make the move into main tree
less error prone.

I think, all the legal terms "no mirror" and "no branded redistribution"
are clear, but portage might get problems to check/recognise "within a
legal entity". DNS zones, netblocks and so on are all optional and do
not necessarily represent these boundaries.
trusted computing platform ... please no.
GPG keys sets with encrypted tarballs would raise the awareness, all of
them bypass-able

In the end, legally speaking, it's the user pushing buttons and portage
is no licensed lawyer.

   Michael
-- 
Michael Weber
Gentoo Developer
web: https://xmw.de/
mailto: Michael Weber <xmw@gentoo.org>