Tim Larson <Tim.Larson%proxibid.com@localhost> writes: >> DESCR should mention GPL in passing; a library intended to be usable in >> embedded products being GPL is not what I'd expect. (I don't mean to >> object to someone writing and distributing a library, or to it being >> packaged. I would just expect that most actual products would rule it >> out, so it seems good to add "GPL-licensed" to the DESCR (not to be >> pointed; just add the words so people perceive reality efficiently). > > Please clarify. Do you suggest this because a GPL (as opposed to LGPL) > library seems odd? (I'd agree, but that's what it is. There is some > mention of exceptions, but I didn't chase that down.) It's not odd so much as it's playing the 'make library GPL to encourage software to choose GPL to get the benefit of the library' game. That's the author's call and I don't begrudge it, but most embedded systems want to avoid GPL so they can choose their license. So a "this library is really great from embedded" while not mentioning GPL gives the wrong impression, and I think pkgsrc should try to give the right impression. If polarssl is offering GPL and then pursuing a proprietary relicensing model, then pkgsrc should be extra careful to wwarn people. PKGSRC_RUN_TEST can be set to “yes” to run each package's self-test before installing it. Note that some packages make heavy use of “good” random numbers, so you need to assure that the machine on which you are doing the bulk builds is not completely idle. Otherwise some test programs will seem to hang, while they are just waiting for new random data to be available. OK. probably that and test dependencies should be separate, but given the state of the world, polarssl is fine here. > Thought I'd done this but must have forgotten to save. Now when I add > "$NetBSD$" it still complains about the comment. What comment am I > supposed to add? You're supposed to explain: why is the patch here? what does it do? has it been sent upstream? if so, URL to bug? if not, why not? >> Why is REPLACE_PERL outside of ifdef while USE_TOOLS is in? > > I'm not completely sure what the previous packager was trying to do > regarding the test suite, but I wanted to leave that in. Not moving > the USE_TOOLS line was my error, though. So is perl needed if you don't run the tests? (My approach is that dependencies should be minimized.)
Attachment:
pgpDqBPHjC_5U.pgp
Description: PGP signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Monitor your physical, virtual and cloud infrastructure from a single web console. Get in-depth insight into apps, servers, databases, vmware, SAP, cloud infrastructure, etc. Download 30-day Free Trial. Pricing starts from $795 for 25 servers or applications! http://p.sf.net/sfu/zoho_dev2dev_nov
_______________________________________________ pkgsrc-wip-review mailing list pkgsrc-wip-review%lists.sourceforge.net@localhost https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pkgsrc-wip-review