From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-59898-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7283B1381F3
for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 19:53:55 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 51D98E09C6;
Fri, 26 Apr 2013 19:53:47 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-vb0-f42.google.com (mail-vb0-f42.google.com [209.85.212.42])
(using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67EAFE0950
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 19:53:46 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-vb0-f42.google.com with SMTP id w15so473764vbf.29
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 12:53:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:x-received:sender:in-reply-to:references:date
:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
bh=sTYUkEKCgOC755hs2hHDjQ0LUybNTlTBGxmI2JK7Drc=;
b=ggvU1VpYYq+H6c8NWHggShIYguOLPeobxHJDnYmIK6NzC5gmg1/vnrh5XXfx7yQpyQ
1cSxbB3p3NR91DB1OSHZMFcapEMOCrx/gZLPBWk0LgXlIbCgqdicseGzYr2GPCAfGKct
iaKe7w1YYIgXVb+B44b6YzIixqeVmvxQBeolNIAWwmXvA8wQEG0gB9gIFZBIU+VtDWrD
VJawnfV2P3wZ04mkDfHLHf4YX9Z3943KMc9WCv3gt69DNHRmQmtLIkDxaLunTRN2zU95
p684BTJ1GE67hXWxO38npN1VbkryZV+2dUfcL8aW9IHY0z5oBYrIKeuulouK8vG/5pxA
+axQ==
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.58.29.101 with SMTP id j5mr62506veh.26.1367006025574; Fri,
26 Apr 2013 12:53:45 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com
Received: by 10.52.168.4 with HTTP; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 12:53:45 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <517AD8FC.3040806@gentoo.org>
References: <20858.42422.774640.252393@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de>
<517AA97D.8040402@gentoo.org>
<20130426185621.68dbd58a@marga.jer-c2.orkz.net>
<517AB5DF.9090601@gentoo.org>
<20130426191536.0c8eaf14@marga.jer-c2.orkz.net>
<517AC7C8.408@gentoo.org>
<CAGfcS_nBjeoRfn_fwOYHnAk=Zu8HvbjZL7fBmX2mU1j16rN_cw@mail.gmail.com>
<517AD074.9080006@gentoo.org>
<517AD45B.6070800@gentoo.org>
<517AD8FC.3040806@gentoo.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 15:53:45 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: Y2tPj04ZEcQN-L85F35kYRXUnAI
Message-ID: <CAGfcS_kfX670a5uuHTaCgfcXs4weGLQKY=eiEGJo=S9n1dkPGQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Should mirror restriction imply bindist restriction?
From: Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Archives-Salt: 2f8d3269-517b-47ff-ab66-a3f6c07df5e8
X-Archives-Hash: 90665c4c8f451f42fb0b6085387440d3
On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina
<zerochaos@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Based on Rich's suggestion my thought is have a new license group for
> things which are ALWAYS binary restricted, accepted by default, but
> removed from ACCEPT_LICENSE when USE=bindist. That is just what is
> rolling around in my head right now, but it is semi-sane.
We already have the BINARY-REDISTRIBUTABLE group. So, if you just set
ACCEPT_LICENSE=@BINARY-REDISTRIBUTABLE you'll only get packages you
can redistribute. Then you can just set ACCEPT_LICENSE=FOO in
/etc/portage/env for packages you are handling with USE=-bindist or
whatever.
Sure, it might be a little nicer to have a bit more automation, but
the existing license group lets you set things conservatively so
you'll never be burned by accidentally redistributing something you
can't. I'd be interested in hearing from anybody who actually has the
need to redistribute things and thinks that this is insufficient.
Rich