Dan Price wrote:
Sorry if some of my questions are a little dense. Hopefully
this makes sense.
On Wed 15 Jul 2009 at 08:57PM, Shawn Walker wrote:
* Enablement of administrators and users to restrict what packages
A grammar nit: "Enablement of" is somewhat stilted. "Enable
[administrators|package creators]" works just as well.
Can we give some guidance that this is to be avoided if at all
possible, due to problems with user dissatisfaction? I know I
will be dissatisfied if I have to watch reams of "must-display"
licenses go by. It would also be nice to give guidance that
this is not a place for advertising, documentation, READMEs,
HOWTOs, etc.
Guidance is possible, enforcement is not, as you're aware :)
license-accept A list of values that will be used to mark any
license with a matching description or class as
accepted automatically if they require acceptance.
This value is undefined by default.
Can this be set by the user to "all"?
That's what license-policy=accept is for.
license-accept and license-decline are for the acceptance/declining
(filtering?) of specific licenses, while license-policy is the giant
sledgehammer that gets applied *after* that filtering is done. So no,
it can't be set to all, and doesn't need to be. I'll try to make this
clearer in the documentation (that the license-accept and
license-decline policies are just filters that get applied *before* the
license-policy).
5. cli
5.1. pkg(1)
The pkg(1) client that pkg(5) provides needs to be enhanced to
provide the following functionality:
* A mechanism to temporarily override client behaviour, provide
intial policy values during image-creation, or to provide
explicit user intent (such as license acceptance).
A new command-line option as shown below will be added to the
pkg(1) client that will allow its usage with applicable sub-
commands. Policy names not applicable to the corresponding
subcommand will effectively be ignored (such as pursue-latest
with the 'fix' subcommand).
--policy <policy-name>=<policy-value>
To be clear, what is the syntax for multiple policy settings?
I presume it's to specify --policy multiple times.
Correct.
The following packages contain licenses that require
acceptance before they can be installed (use --policy
license-policy=accept to accept these licenses):
(should we have --accept as a shortcut for this?)
I'd rather not; I'm trying to have a generic mechanism for policy, and
as was mentioned yesterday, this should be for exceptional cases. And
if I have --accept, then what about --decline, etc.
--accept-license would be clearer, though I'm not thrilled by the idea
of having two ways to specify the same value (e.g. --accept-license
--policy license-policy=accept).
Can a copyright be marked "must-accept"?
Yes, because I can't distinguish a copyright from an actual license,
although it obviously isn't recommended.
Will the user's PAGER be employed at any time? What happens if the
license is many pages long? Use of PAGER might allow the license to be
displayed in the "alternate" screen, which would be nice for information
flow.
I can use $PAGER.
Cheers,
--
Shawn Walker
_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
