> Hi, > > add to your /etc/portage/package.license : > > net-im/skype skype-eula > > This will unmask skype. > > regards, > > Boris
Could someone explain the purpose of this new portage feature? I was hoping adding a license to package.license would negate the need to agree to the license when emerging, but it doesn't seem to do that. - Grant >> This is confusing me ... >> >> I have skype-2.0.0.72 installed for some time now. eix -l skype shows: >> >> [I] net-im/skype >> Available versions: >> 2.0.0.72!m!s "amd64 x86" [qt-static] >> ~ 2.1.0.81+i!m!s "~amd64 ~x86" [qt-static] >> Installed versions: 2.0.0.72!m!s(06:22:21 04/15/09)(-qt-static) >> Homepage: http://www.skype.com/ >> Description: A P2P-VoiceIP client. >> >> However, after updating portage I see: >> >> Calculating dependencies... done! >> >> Total: 0 packages, Size of downloads: 0 kB >> >> !!! The following installed packages are masked: >> - net-im/skype-2.0.0.72 (masked by: skype-eula license(s)) >> A copy of the 'skype-eula' license is located at >> '/usr/portage/licenses/skype- >> eula'. >> >> Is portage telling me that I need to do something about the eula? eix does >> not show this version as being masked. >> -- >> Regards, >> Mick
