Duncan wrote:
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.
Maybe it should be called ACCEPTABLE_LICENSES.
Marijn
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
