[85256] trunk/base/src/port1.0/portlint.tcl

[Eric A. Borisch]

On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Clemens Lang <cal at macports.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 10:22:50AM -0500, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>> > Why should leaving the license field empty, and blocking so many
>> > others ports from being able to be distributed, be acceptable?
>>
>> There are ports for which we cannot determine the license. It would be
>> annoying to keep receiving lint notices for something we can't change.
>
> Shouldn't we have a license value for those, too? Rather than just
> skipping the license line, we could have something like
>        license undetermined
> to mark somebody has looked into the license for this port and there is
> none.

That sounds good. Someone needs to pick a name that can be recorded in
the Guide for standardization: "Unknown / TBD / Unlisted /
Undetermined."

I like 'TBD' -- it's a statement that we know we don't know, but that
we would like to find out. (It's also short to type and hard to
misspell.)

Then will make it easier to 'port echo rdepof:<port that won't
distribute> and license:TBD'

I would also suggest that when marking the license in this fashion,
the committer should include a comment in the portfile (not just the
commit log) as to why it is being marked TBD so it is easier to
revisit later.

 -- Eric
-- 
Eric A. Borisch