[arch-dev-public] Definition of non-free for repo-reorg

[Paul Mattal]

Aaron Griffin wrote:
> On 7/12/07, Paul Mattal <paul at mattal.com> wrote:
>> Damir Perisa wrote:
>>> Thursday 12 July 2007, Simo Leone wrote:
>>>  | I still don't see the need. We've never bothered in the past and
>>>  | it's just making things more complicated, why bother now?
>>>
>>> i agree
>>>
>>> why making all this mess?
>>>
>>> to satisfy the fundamentalists, i would suggest, that you can specify
>>> in pacman.conf, what licences you agree to and what licences you do
>>> not agree to. then pacman will know what is "allowed" to be
>>> installed.
>>> whenever a new licence comes up (with a new pkg) pacman would ask: do
>>> you agree to licence XYZ? licence XYZ can be found
>>> under /path/to/licence if you want to read it. Y/N? and then pacman
>>> would add this result to pacman.conf
>> You know, you're brilliant, man.
>>
>> Yes, this is clearly the place to do this, in my opinion.
> 
> Hmmm http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/6510

Okay, so you're brilliant, too. :)

Seriously though, this gives a good way to handle the licensing 
without burdening the package organization. Good separation.

- P