On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 9:00 PM, Mike Edenfield <kut...@kutulu.org> wrote: > On 11/9/2009 9:41 PM, Mark Knecht wrote: > >> If I remove the new ACCEPT_LICENSE="dlj-1.1" I added to make.conf > > So don't do that?
Right. I only removed it to show the message to Dale. This was, however, my first time running into this new ACCEPT_LECENSE thing. I'd not heard of it before and all my machines were failing to update. The obsolete message, coupled with a bunch of lines talking about licenses threw me for a loop. > >> !!! All ebuilds that could satisfy "dev-java/sun-jre-bin" have been >> masked. >> !!! One of the following masked packages is required to complete your >> request: >> - dev-java/sun-jre-bin-1.6.0.17 (masked by: dlj-1.1 license(s)) >> - dev-java/sun-jre-bin-1.6.0.16 (masked by: dlj-1.1 license(s), ~x86 >> keyword) >> - dev-java/sun-jre-bin-1.6.0.15 (masked by: dlj-1.1 license(s)) >> - dev-java/sun-jre-bin-1.5.0.22 (masked by: dlj-1.1 license(s)) >> - dev-java/sun-jre-bin-1.5.0.21 (masked by: dlj-1.1 license(s), ~x86 >> keyword) >> - dev-java/sun-jre-bin-1.5.0.20 (masked by: dlj-1.1 license(s)) >> - dev-java/sun-jre-bin-1.4.2.19 (masked by: package.mask) > > > One very old version is masked off because of security problems. Siz > different subsequent versions are available as long as you accept the new > license. > > --Mike > >
