Re: [Fink-devel] new field in .info files

[Max Horn]

At 14:33 Uhr -0500 16.01.2003, David R. Morrison wrote:

Hi Max.

I've just gone through this process of figuring out which things to put
on the exclude list for the third time.  It is really painful, with the
current tools.

Yes, but that "just" means the tools have to become better. They would have to be adjusted to suppoer an additional field, too, so work is needed in either case.

The maker of the bindist doesn't check each individual package to make sure
that the license was correctly assigned, right?  We leave that to the
package maintainers... So similarly, we could let the package maintainers
indicate which of the Restrictive licenses actually will permit binary
distribution.

Hrm, right as well. So why not split the Restrictive license class into two:
Restrictive
RestrictiveButDistributable

(well, obviously with better names). That would seem more logical to me than a seperate field.

I'm imagining a situation in which we have, for example, automated nightly
builds from the stable and/or unstable trees.  Justin has some scripts
which will do this (once the Fink bug about dependencies of pakcages with
splitoffs gets fixed).

Then
--
-----------------------------------------------
Max Horn
Software Developer


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.NET email is sponsored by: Thawte.com
Understand how to protect your customers personal information by implementing
SSL on your Apache Web Server. Click here to get our FREE Thawte Apache Guide: http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?thaw0029en
_______________________________________________
Fink-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel