On Fri, 5 Aug 2016 13:06:51 -0400 Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 08/05/2016 12:22 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote: > > On 06/08/16 02:11, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > >> I would like to add an exception for metadata changes, too, but honestly > >> I don't trust people to use it wisely. I shouldn't have to bug the arch > >> teams if I add a second LICENSE and revbump... maybe if this exception > >> is worded strongly-enough it could do more good than harm. > > > > Why would one revbump for a change to LICENSE? > > > > Along with ACCEPT_LICENSE, the LICENSE variable affects which packages > can and cannot be installed. You need a new revision so that users who > already have the package installed will pick up the change. If the > change makes a package violate a user's ACCEPT_LICENSE, they need to know. > > If you installed something whose EULA says it can hijack your webcam and > post naked pictures of you to slashdot, but it incorrectly had > LICENSE="GPL-2", wouldn't you want to find out that I corrected it? Wouldn't the revbump actually cause the PM to ignore the new version and keep to the incorrectly licensed one? -- Best regards, Michał Górny