From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C602713832E for ; Fri, 5 Aug 2016 17:38:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 87F5521C080; Fri, 5 Aug 2016 17:38:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF94721C07E for ; Fri, 5 Aug 2016 17:38:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (c-98-218-46-55.hsd1.md.comcast.net [98.218.46.55]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mjo) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CB258340B98 for ; Fri, 5 Aug 2016 17:38:35 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2016-08-14 To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org References: <2e11e445-c25b-b7f2-def1-99aed92308b6@gentoo.org> <20160804162443.GA7048@whubbs1.gaikai.biz> <2d04cd6e-8f20-0944-0f3f-cc54bcab3a01@gentoo.org> <57A4C8BB.9040209@gentoo.org> From: Michael Orlitzky Message-ID: Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2016 13:38:33 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <57A4C8BB.9040209@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: c68d76bf-0acd-47ab-9bfb-828edddf7d6a X-Archives-Hash: 3c34462422a40d80ccf1045fb213f955 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.