Bug 203487 - [PATCH] x11-clocks/wmclock :Update to version 1.0.16
Summary: [PATCH] x11-clocks/wmclock :Update to version 1.0.16
Status: Closed FIXED
Alias: None
Product: Ports & Packages
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Individual Port(s) (show other bugs)
Version: Latest
Hardware: Any Any
: --- Affects Only Me
Assignee: John Marino
Keywords: patch
Depends on:
Reported: 2015-10-01 18:34 UTC by tkato432
Modified: 2015-10-16 14:43 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:

x11-clocks_wmclock.diff (1.78 KB, patch)
2015-10-01 18:34 UTC, tkato432
no flags Details | Diff
x11-clocks_wmclock.diff (3.32 KB, patch)
2015-10-15 18:02 UTC, tkato432
no flags Details | Diff

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description tkato432 2015-10-01 18:34:36 UTC
Created attachment 161620 [details]
Comment 1 John Marino freebsd_committer 2015-10-10 15:29:34 UTC
since you are touching PORTDATA anyway, please remove it and augment PLIST_FILES or add pkg-plist instead.  PORTDATA is unwanted in general.
Comment 2 tkato432 2015-10-15 18:02:34 UTC
Created attachment 162082 [details]
Comment 3 John Marino freebsd_committer 2015-10-16 13:21:06 UTC
I don't understand why you are commenting out the LICENSE_FILE.

It's one thing to not add a LICENSE_FILE and just use standard templates, but it's quite another to REMOVE a valid LICENSE_FILE.

This realy is wrong.  If the LICENSE_FILE is defined and it's valid, please just leave it.
Comment 4 commit-hook freebsd_committer 2015-10-16 13:36:05 UTC
A commit references this bug:

Author: marino
Date: Fri Oct 16 13:35:49 UTC 2015
New revision: 399471
URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/399471

  x11-clocks/wmclock: Upgrade version 1.0.15 => 1.0.16

  The PORTDATA mechanism was removed (per my request).

  PR:		203487
  Submitted by:	ports fury

Comment 5 John Marino freebsd_committer 2015-10-16 13:38:34 UTC
Comment 6 tkato432 2015-10-16 14:40:23 UTC
COPYING file consists of whole GPLv2 letter and some additional
notes by the original author. In this case, COPYING is likely be
considered as something different from the exact GPLv2 description.
Comment 7 John Marino freebsd_committer 2015-10-16 14:43:53 UTC
"In this case, COPYING is likely be
considered as something different from the exact GPLv2 description."

Which means LICENCE_FILE is not optional at that point; it's required.

LICENCE_FILE is the top priority over the general category of GPLv2.  If there is a difference, LICENSE_FILE wins and must be used with LICENSE.