> -----Original Message----- > From: Development [mailto:development-bounces+kai.koehne=qt.io@qt- > project.org] On Behalf Of Thiago Macieira > Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2018 10:21 PM > To: development@qt-project.org > Subject: Re: [Development] Repository Request: qt/licensing > > On Friday, 18 May 2018 18:18:02 -03 Thiago Macieira wrote: > > > Just for clarification: The official source packages contain the > > > licheck executables already. My aim is that a git checkout and the > > > source packages we provide contain the very same content. > > > > I understand, but I'm asking you not to. > > Here's something that would be acceptable: > > Do create the qt/licensing repo but make it empty, or just a README file or > whatever is necessary. This repository can live in qt-project.org and be > mirrored > under github.com/qtproject. > > In your internal infra, use a different repository branched off from the > public > one, containing the licence checker binary and anything else you may need. > This repository should never be shared.
Well, the whole point of the exercise is to allow customers to configure Qt under commercial terms from git, so any non-shared git module doesn't help. We can also ship licheck binaries independently of the git modules, and ask then customers to pass their location e.g. via a configure argument: configure -commercial -licheck /path/to/licheck ... then all we have to add to qtbase is the .release-timestamp file to mark the date of a release. This means we'll give up the goal of making the qt source package sbe just archives of the git archives though. Regards Kai _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development