The lha license says (English translation): 2. Distribution shall conform: [...] c. Binary only distribution is not allowed (including added value ones.) Therefore, RESTRICT="bindist" should be added to the ebuild.
Thanks for the heads up. Would you mind sharing where you found that? I don't see anything like that in the source code on github, nor in the tarball. Not doubting you, just interested in reviewing the details myself. I'm attaching an extremely small rev bump to -r9 with the restriction added. Not sure whether full ebuilds or just a patch is preferred, so I'm attaching both. If you'd like me to update this some other way, happy to do so, just need a little guidance. Thanks.
Created attachment 586134 [details, diff] patch to -r9 adding bindist restriction
Created attachment 586136 [details] rev bump including bindist restriction
(In reply to Jared B. from comment #1) > Thanks for the heads up. Would you mind sharing where you found that? I > don't see anything like that in the source code on github, nor in the > tarball. Not doubting you, just interested in reviewing the details myself. The license is in man/lha.n (in Japanese): https://github.com/jca02266/lha/blob/master/man/lha.n#L245 Debian provides an English translation (section 2.c.): https://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/non-free/l/lha/current/copyright > I'm attaching an extremely small rev bump to -r9 with the restriction added. > Not sure whether full ebuilds or just a patch is preferred, so I'm attaching > both. If you'd like me to update this some other way, happy to do so, just > need a little guidance. This will affect only building of the binary package, so I think RESTRICT can be added in place (to all ebuilds, without revbump). (In reply to Jared B. from comment #3) > Created attachment 586136 [details] Nitpick: RESTRICT belongs to the second variable block (LICENSE, SLOT, etc.), so no blank line before it. :-)
(In reply to Ulrich Müller from comment #4) > Nitpick: RESTRICT belongs to the second variable block (LICENSE, SLOT, > etc.), so no blank line before it. :-) Nitpick appreciated; I want to better understand how and why these decisions are made. Can you tell me if there's any documentation detailing that? I just skimmed the Ebuild Writing guide, but I didn't see anything in there that shows or explains the structure you described. Is there maybe a canonical example ebuild file that I should be referencing? Don't want to veer too far off topic, just genuinely want to better understand this so I can provide ebuilds.
(In reply to Jared B. from comment #5) Yeah, this is not in the devmanual. :-) The widely used convention is to have DESCRIPTION, HOMEPAGE, SRC_URI in one block, and LICENSE, SLOT, KEYWORDS, IUSE, REQUIRED_USE, PROPERTIES, RESTRICT in another block (of course, only those that are defined). See skel.ebuild; it has two blank lines where there a blank line should appear in the real ebuild.
The bug has been closed via the following commit(s): https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=58aa66ec1fed6071184e7759ee3c257af792e3ba commit 58aa66ec1fed6071184e7759ee3c257af792e3ba Author: Ulrich Müller <ulm@gentoo.org> AuthorDate: 2019-12-28 15:26:15 +0000 Commit: Ulrich Müller <ulm@gentoo.org> CommitDate: 2019-12-28 15:26:15 +0000 app-arch/lha: Add bindist restriction. Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/691734 Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.84, Repoman-2.3.20 Signed-off-by: Ulrich Müller <ulm@gentoo.org> app-arch/lha/lha-114i-r9.ebuild | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
