Marien Zwart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Tue, 21 Nov 2006 19:36:35 +0100:
> Since check_license was (I assume) originally added because it was > required for certain (mostly games) ebuilds: is the possibility to accept > the license by putting a wildcard or group in ACCEPT_LICENSE "compatible" > with those licenses? If it is not this would need some more thought: it > would be quite confusing if certain licenses did not follow the same > "rules" for groups and wildcards as other licenses, or if portage followed > different rules at resolve time than check_license in eutils does. As I've read the GLEP (as proposed for update), you are missing something here. The package manager's treatment of ACCEPT_LICENSE will simply be masking/unmasking of the appropriate ebuilds. It won't change whether interactive license agreement is required or not, simply whether such a package is masked or not. Thus, accepting an interactive license will be a two-stage process -- (1) unmask it by setting ACCEPT_LICENCE appropriately so the ebuild can even be considered for merging, (2) emerge the package and hit the interactive merge section, actually accepting the license there. Setting ACCEPT_LICENSE therefore won't actually accept it. It'll simply tell the package manager whether it can consider certain packages or not. Once the package manager can do so, it can go ahead and actually display the license for agreement if the package is actually merged. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
