Greg Troxel wrote:
> 
> You have suggested "binary", but that's actually more subtle.  There can
> be
> 
>   binaries for which no source is available
>   binaries for which source is available, e.g. openoffice from oo.org
>   binaries built as part of pkgsrc ("make bin-install")
> 
> Then, there's the issue of whether the feature is useful enough to
> justify the maintenance headache.  Do you think there are a lot of
> people who are willing to add many non-free licenses to
> ACCEPTABLE_LICENSES but who are unware that software with icky licenses
> often comes as binary only?
> 


Yes, i'm aware of type of binaries you mentioned, but "make install"  (not
make-bin-install) simply installs a binary package by only accepting terms
of license.

Well, you assume, only high-skill people use netbsd... is this really true?

Regards,



-----
  
  
  
----------------

Cem KAYALI
 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Why-not-assign-a-notice-for-binary-pkgsrc-softwares--tf4748425.html#a13578850
Sent from the netbsd-users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.