Mailing List Archive

Hi,


> While we are not distributing binaries, I could easily add a
> USE flag to enable it; the user compiles it himself, so it is all
> fine. But now regard the existence of binary hosts, are they
> distributions of then illegal binaries?
>


isn't bindist useflag made for this purpose ?

$ grep bindist /usr/portage/profiles/use.desc
bindist - Flag to enable or disable options for prebuilt (GRP)
packages (eg. due to licensing issues)


Alexis.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org>:

> > While we are not distributing binaries, I could easily add a
> > USE flag to enable it; the user compiles it himself, so it is all
> > fine. But now regard the existence of binary hosts, are they
> > distributions of then illegal binaries?
> isn't bindist useflag made for this purpose ?

Great. Thanks...so what is common practice? Should the ebuild die,
telling people a feature will not be included or just exclude it with
an ewarn only?

V-Li

--
Christian Faulhammer, Gentoo Lisp project
<URL:http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/>, #gentoo-lisp on FreeNode

<URL:http://www.faulhammer.org/>

On Fri, 2007-31-08 at 16:31 +0200, Christian Faulhammer wrote:
> Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org>:
>
> > > While we are not distributing binaries, I could easily add a
> > > USE flag to enable it; the user compiles it himself, so it is all
> > > fine. But now regard the existence of binary hosts, are they
> > > distributions of then illegal binaries?
> > isn't bindist useflag made for this purpose ?
>
> Great. Thanks...so what is common practice? Should the ebuild die,
> telling people a feature will not be included or just exclude it with
> an ewarn only?

With bindist, you should just disable any non-distributable feature and
print a ewarn.. Dieing is not nice since its used to build the stages,
etc.

--
Olivier Crête
tester@gentoo.org
Gentoo Developer

Olivier Crête <tester@gentoo.org>:

> > Great. Thanks...so what is common practice? Should the ebuild
> > die, telling people a feature will not be included or just exclude
> > it with an ewarn only?
> With bindist, you should just disable any non-distributable feature
> and print a ewarn.. Dieing is not nice since its used to build the
> stages, etc.

Olivier, Steve, thanks. So I will just emit an ewarn in the
ebuild...that way Gentoo will be the only major distribution shipping
hybrid auth in vpnc. Yay! Other source based will offer it, too,
though.

V-Li

--
Christian Faulhammer, Gentoo Lisp project
<URL:http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/>, #gentoo-lisp on FreeNode

<URL:http://www.faulhammer.org/>

Christian Faulhammer wrote:

> Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org>:
>
>> > While we are not distributing binaries, I could easily add a
>> > USE flag to enable it; the user compiles it himself, so it is all
>> > fine. But now regard the existence of binary hosts, are they
>> > distributions of then illegal binaries?
Definitely. IIRC distribution within an organisation doesn't count as
distribution under the GPL but I am not a lawyer. (Nor do I like that
acronym: my eyeballs survive reading it tho ;) Any public binhost like
tinderbox[1] would be unable to make binaries available.
>> isn't bindist useflag made for this purpose ?
>
> Great. Thanks...so what is common practice? Should the ebuild die,
> telling people a feature will not be included or just exclude it with
> an ewarn only?
>
Dunno what common practice is, but from a user perspective, it's much better
if the binhost compiles without the feature than dies altogether. An
ewarn/elog about bindist is sufficient for any competent admin (and newbs
can search site:forums.gentoo.org or whinge on IRC, where they shall be
gently enlightened ;)

[1] http://tinderbox.dev.gentoo.org/html/default-linux/


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list