On Wed, 2006-11-22 at 04:52 +0000, Duncan wrote: > Marien Zwart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted > [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Tue, 21 > Nov 2006 19:36:35 +0100: > > > Since check_license was (I assume) originally added because it was > > required for certain (mostly games) ebuilds: is the possibility to accept > > the license by putting a wildcard or group in ACCEPT_LICENSE "compatible" > > with those licenses? If it is not this would need some more thought: it > > would be quite confusing if certain licenses did not follow the same > > "rules" for groups and wildcards as other licenses, or if portage followed > > different rules at resolve time than check_license in eutils does. > > As I've read the GLEP (as proposed for update), you are missing something > here. The package manager's treatment of ACCEPT_LICENSE will simply be > masking/unmasking of the appropriate ebuilds. It won't change whether > interactive license agreement is required or not, simply whether such a > package is masked or not. Thus, accepting an interactive license will be > a two-stage process -- (1) unmask it by setting ACCEPT_LICENCE > appropriately so the ebuild can even be considered for merging, (2) emerge > the package and hit the interactive merge section, actually accepting the > license there. > > Setting ACCEPT_LICENSE therefore won't actually accept it. It'll simply > tell the package manager whether it can consider certain packages or not. > Once the package manager can do so, it can go ahead and actually display > the license for agreement if the package is actually merged.
Nope. The goal is for check_license to go away. Please read bug #152593 to see the discussion that's been going on with this. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
