Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2016-08-14

[Michael Orlitzky <mjo@gentoo.org>]

On 08/05/2016 01:11 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> 
> I disagree. ACCEPT_LICENSE does not change the files which the ebuild 
> installs on the user's filesystem, nor does it interfere with subslot 
> dependency calculations like EAPI changes do. Therefore a new revision 
> is not needed.

Those two are sufficient for a new revision, but not necessary. Use
common sense. If not doing a revision is going to negatively affect
people, then you should do a revision.


>> 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?
> 
> That is the package manager's task. I do get reminded if a package which 
> I have installed is now masked by package.mask, maybe something like 
> this would work for licenses too.
> 

The package manager's task is well-defined, and that isn't part of it.
Saying "maybe it's possible somehow some day" is not a good reason to
screw up ACCEPT_LICENSE handling with certainty right now.

To bring this back on topic. If I change LICENSE, I'm going to do it in
a new revision, because I want it to work right -- to each his own. At
the moment, doing a revision on top of a stable ebuild is not optimal,
because little bug fixes like that can remain in unstable for a year. A
carefully-worded exception could alleviate that, when the change could
in no way affect architecture stability.