On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 14:03:08 -0500 Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-11-21 at 17:59 +0100, Kevin F. Quinn wrote: > > Am I correct in thinking that the ACCEPT_LICENSE behaviour will just > > affect how portage calculates whether something can be installed or > > not (much like the behaviour w.r.t. KEYWORDS)? In this is the case, > > interactivity doesn't have much to do with it. As Brian suggests, a > > RESTRICT=interactive seems to be the most appropriate way to allow > > the admin to prevent portage from trying to install packages that > > need interaction during the install (whether it's for inserting CDs, > > accepting licenses, or any other reason). It depends on what > > "ACCEPT_LICENSE" means to the package manager. I take it to mean > > that the package may be considered for inclusion during emerge - > > i.e. the sysadmin is happy for portage to attempt to install > > packages under those licenses onto the system - rather than that > > licenses are actually accepted by the admin or user. If that's > > correct, perhaps naming it "ACCEPTABLE_LICENSES" would be clearer. > > It is used to mask the package, correct. When a package is masked, it > gives the output of the license, or, if the license it too large (I > think Marius set it at 20K) informs the user to read the license file. > It also explains to the user that they will need to read and accept > the license. > > RESTRICT="interactive" should be restricted to only the contents of > the ebuild. ACCEPT_LICENSE="RTCW-ETEULA" emerge enemy-territory is > *not* interactive, That's what I've missed then. I didn't realise that setting ACCEPT_LICENSE would inhibit the interactive confirmation that the license has been read. It means that ACCEPT_LICENSE is a list of licenses that have been accepted (which is not what I thought it was). > whereas "emerge ut2004-data" always is. This is > exactly why we are trying to keep licensing separate from ebuild > interactivity. They are not the same thing, at all. > > ACCEPT_LICENSE needs to be used for backwards compatibility. It is > being used currently by many Gentoo users, myself included, for > licenses which I have accepted. ACCEPT_LICENSE is very much like > ACCEPT_KEYWORDS. We don't use ACCEPTABLE_KEYWORDS, do we? The suggestion to use ACCEPTABLE_LICENSE was to highlight the difference; i.e. that ACCEPT_LICENSE means matching licenses have actually been accepted, rather than ACCEPTABLE_LICENSE meaning licenses that the system owner allows users to accept. Since ACCEPT_LICENSE does affirm the license has been accepted, ACCEPTABLE_LICENSE would be wrong and that suggestion goes down the pan. In retrospect it's complete garbage. > > Some packages require each user to accept the license explicitly > > when it is run (e.g. Acrobat Reader), some require it to be accepted > > explicitly during install (Enemy Territory) - in neither case should > > portage be taking automatic responsibility for actually accepting > > the license. > > It isn't. The package manager will not be accepting anything. The > *system administrator* does the accepting... just like if I were to > "emerge enemy-territory" now. > > > On naming - please can we avoid calling any group "NOT-<something>". > > Since the ACCEPT_LICENSE syntax allows -<license>, it's much better > > to use affirmative names always; in this case for example > > INTERACTIVE-INSTALL-ACCEPTANCE instead of NON-MUST-HAVE-READ. One > > can define > > > > ACCEPTABLE_LICENSES="* [EMAIL PROTECTED]" > > > > easily enough. > > Except we don't want that. > > We don't want to support ACCEPT_LICENSE="*" including the interactive > licenses, since that *would* be skipping the requirements on the > license. This has been discussed on the bug report, already, but > unless we made "*" not really equal "*", then it won't work, as it > won't fill the requirement that the license is accepted. OK that's fine. I'd still like to see a positive rather than a negative name, but I admit I can't think of a good one to cover what NOT-MUST-HAVE-READ would cover. Following the discussion about "*" from the bug (#152593 for those who don't know), I can see why you'd rather not have a positive list of restricted licenses. The best name I can think of to replace "NOT-MUST-HAVE-READ", is "UNRESTRICTED". That clearly doesn't say anything about interactivity - it's just a list of all the licenses that have no restrictions on the operation of portage. > Now, I ask everyone to go read the bug before posting any more > comments, since most of this has been discussed quite a bit there, > and doesn't need to be rehashed. I didn't realise there was a bug (#152593) - I was responding to the posting of the GLEP and discussion I've seen here recently. I've read it now... -- Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
