Re: [gentoo-user] skype masked because of eula?
easier still would be to put ACCEPT_LICENSE=* in your make.conf On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Willie Wong ww...@math.princeton.eduwrote: On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 09:43:22AM -0800, Grant wrote: Hi, add to your /etc/portage/package.license : net-im/skype skype-eula This will unmask skype. regards, 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. Really? are you sure you don't have a typo? I don't use package.license, but I put ACCEPT_LICENSE=skype-eula in my make.conf and emerged skype with no problems nor prompts. What did you see after performing Boris's suggestions? W -- Willie W. Wong ww...@math.princeton.edu Data aequatione quotcunque fluentes quantitae involvente fluxiones invenire et vice versa ~~~ I. Newton
Re: [gentoo-user] skype masked because of eula?
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 09:09:26AM -0800, Kyle Adams wrote: easier still would be to put ACCEPT_LICENSE=* in your make.conf Easier... arguably. But are you sure you want to accept ALL EULAs that can ever be? What if I were to bundle some software that has a two line EULA: By installing this software you agree that I am not responsible for anything breaking. And I can freely use computing cycles on your computer for other purposes. It is in plain English. Would you accept this EULA? I accept Skype's EULA while compromising my standards because, all things considered, it is the best way to communicate with family and friends overseas. But in general I do not like it when software comes with strings attached, and I try to avoid them. The issue of whether EULAs are legally binding aside, just agreeing, blindly, to any-and-all past-and-future contracts that unknown third entities thrust at you is, in my opinion, considerably daft. W -- Willie W. Wong ww...@math.princeton.edu Data aequatione quotcunque fluentes quantitae involvente fluxiones invenire et vice versa ~~~ I. Newton
Re: [gentoo-user] skype masked because of eula?
Hi, add to your /etc/portage/package.license : net-im/skype skype-eula This will unmask skype. regards, 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. Really? are you sure you don't have a typo? I don't use package.license, but I put ACCEPT_LICENSE=skype-eula in my make.conf and emerged skype with no problems nor prompts. What did you see after performing Boris's suggestions? I'm doing all of my testing with net-wireless/broadcom-sta. package.license seems to unmask the package which otherwise won't emerge. ACCEPT_LICENSE does negate the need manually accept the license. So they seem to perform different functions. skype will still emerge without package.license? Maybe there's a difference in the license which is responsible for the different behavior? - Grant
Re: [gentoo-user] skype masked because of eula?
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 10:14:27AM -0800, Grant wrote: I'm doing all of my testing with net-wireless/broadcom-sta. package.license seems to unmask the package which otherwise won't emerge. ACCEPT_LICENSE does negate the need manually accept the license. So they seem to perform different functions. skype will still emerge without package.license? Maybe there's a difference in the license which is responsible for the different behavior? That's odd. You say that ACCEPT_LICENSE negates the need to manually accept the license, yet package.license does not? You should file a bug about this: per 'man portage' package.license This will allow ACCEPT_LICENSE to be augmented for a sin‐ gle package. Format: - comment lines begin with # (no inline comments) - one DEPEND atom per line followed by additional licenses or groups I read this to mean that they should behave the same way. The design philosophy of ACCEPT_LICENSE vs package.license seems to be the same as ACCEPT_KEYWORD vs package.keyword ... Curious. W -- Willie W. Wong ww...@math.princeton.edu Data aequatione quotcunque fluentes quantitae involvente fluxiones invenire et vice versa ~~~ I. Newton
Re: [gentoo-user] skype masked because of eula?
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
Re: [gentoo-user] skype masked because of eula?
On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 09:43:22AM -0800, Grant wrote: Hi, add to your /etc/portage/package.license : net-im/skype skype-eula This will unmask skype. regards, 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. Really? are you sure you don't have a typo? I don't use package.license, but I put ACCEPT_LICENSE=skype-eula in my make.conf and emerged skype with no problems nor prompts. What did you see after performing Boris's suggestions? W -- Willie W. Wong ww...@math.princeton.edu Data aequatione quotcunque fluentes quantitae involvente fluxiones invenire et vice versa ~~~ I. Newton
Re: [gentoo-user] skype masked because of eula?
Hi, add to your /etc/portage/package.license : net-im/skype skype-eula This will unmask skype. regards, Boris On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 08:27, Mick michaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote: 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 -- 42
Re: [gentoo-user] skype masked because of eula?
Mick wrote: 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. 1. Go to Google (or your favourite search engine) 2. Search for gentoo license mask 3. Follow instructions from several previous threads John Moe
Re: [gentoo-user] skype masked because of eula?
2010/1/26 John H. Moe john...@optusnet.com.au: Mick wrote: 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. 1. Go to Google (or your favourite search engine) 2. Search for gentoo license mask 3. Follow instructions from several previous threads Nice, thanks. :-) -- Regards, Mick
