|Summary:||[request] License should be optional for metaports|
|Product:||Ports & Packages||Reporter:||Yuri Victorovich <yuri>|
|Component:||Ports Framework||Assignee:||Port Management Team <portmgr>|
|Severity:||Affects Only Me||CC:||portmaster, ports-bugs|
Description Yuri Victorovich 2017-11-28 08:12:07 UTC
'make' in a metaport complains: Please set LICENSE for this port Metaports don't have any distfiles, and are merely collections of other ports. License doesn't apply to them in most cases. Please make LICENSE optional for metaports, do not complain when it is missing.
Comment 1 Mathieu Arnold 2017-11-28 14:23:33 UTC
Maybe instead USES=metaport should set LICENSE=PD or LICENSE=NONE or something similar.
Comment 2 Chris Hutchinson 2017-11-28 15:22:50 UTC
(In reply to Mathieu Arnold from comment #1) > Maybe instead USES=metaport should set LICENSE=PD or LICENSE=NONE or > something similar. Indeed. Maybe the ports framework could have a "magic" LICENSE key like NOREQ, UNREQ, or DOESNOTAPPLY? For these type of situations? Just my .02¢ Thanks for bringing this up Yuri! Good catch! --Chris
Comment 3 Mark Linimon 2017-11-28 16:38:42 UTC
possibly LICENSE=SKIP ?
Comment 4 Chris Hutchinson 2017-11-28 16:58:39 UTC
(In reply to Mark Linimon from comment #3) > possibly LICENSE=SKIP ? Ooo, I like it! +1 from me. :) --Chris
Comment 6 Yuri Victorovich 2017-11-28 23:37:20 UTC
Actually, LICENSE=SKIP is very generic and unclear. I would rather suggest explicit choices: > LICENSE=NOT_APPLICABLE # can't have a license, like for metaport > LICENSE=NOT_SPECIFIED # author didn't care to set the license
Comment 7 Yuri Victorovich 2017-11-29 05:38:41 UTC
'SKIP' is an action, but the reason for the action is more descriptive.
Comment 8 Chris Hutchinson 2017-11-29 06:45:41 UTC
(In reply to Yuri Victorovich from comment #7) > 'SKIP' is an action, but the reason for the action is more descriptive. While I can see your other point. I'm still in for SKIP. Because in this use case, it really seems the best description for the needed action. :) --Chris
Comment 9 Mathieu Arnold 2017-11-29 09:13:10 UTC
All your suggestions are nice, but they all end up meaning: LICENSE= NONE
Comment 10 Antoine Brodin 2017-11-29 10:52:50 UTC
(In reply to Mathieu Arnold from comment #9) hmm, LICENSE=NONE means no redistribution/selling
Comment 11 Mathieu Arnold 2017-11-29 12:08:45 UTC
I wonder if the 34 ports that use it know that.
Comment 12 Mathieu Arnold 2017-11-29 12:22:40 UTC
Anyway, the best we can do is add a LICENSE?= BSD2CLAUSE in Mk/Uses/metaport.mk.
Comment 13 Yuri Victorovich 2017-11-29 16:05:13 UTC
(In reply to Mathieu Arnold from comment #12) Maybe, the best thing to do is to add licenses that really reflect the situation?
Comment 14 Chris Hutchinson 2017-11-29 16:21:30 UTC
(In reply to Mathieu Arnold from comment #12) > Anyway, the best we can do is add a LICENSE?= BSD2CLAUSE in > Mk/Uses/metaport.mk. IMHO if that's the case, than the LICENSE hook seems flawed. None of the options/solutions /really/ seem to be correct. More like duct tape, or an afterthought. Is there no relatively easy way to unhook LICENSE from META-ports? There really isn't a need for LICENSE to be involved in this case, as the individual (included) ports each declare their respective LICENSE. --Chris
Comment 15 Mathieu Arnold 2017-11-30 16:36:23 UTC
Well, metaports can have the license the Ports tree is distributed with, which is BSD2CLAUSE, it seems the more sensible thing to do.