On 21.2.2010 14.49, Zac Medico wrote: > On 02/21/2010 02:36 PM, Petteri Räty wrote: >> On 21.2.2010 14.17, Zac Medico wrote: >>> On 02/21/2010 09:08 AM, Petteri Räty wrote: >>>> On 20.2.2010 14.28, Zac Medico wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> Since portage-2.1.7.x is stable now, with ACCEPT_LICENSE support, we >>>>> can think about deprecating check_license [1]. This will allow us to >>>>> avoid using PROPERTIES=interactive in cases when it is due to >>>>> check_license alone, since anything with a license in the @EULA >>>>> license group is automatically masked by the default >>>>> ACCEPT_LICENSE="* -...@eula" portage configuration [2]. >>>>> >>>>> [1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=299095 >>>>> [2] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=302645 >>>> >>>> We could handle it like deprecating ebeep and epause. With EAPI=4 don't >>>> define the function any more and the Portage version will be >>>> sufficiently new to have ACCEPT_LICENSE. >>> >>> That's a good idea. However, we may want to deprecate check_license >>> it starting with EAPI=3 since the corresponding portage versions >>> already support ACCEPT_LICENSE. >> >> Likely there wouldn't be any breakage with it doing it in EAPI 3 but it >> would be against the eclass contract of not changing expected behavior. > > Given that check_license already returns silently if the user has > accepted the appropriate license(s) via ACCEPT_LICENSE, it's not > necessary to change the eclass contract in order to safely remove > PROPERTIES=interactive from EAPI=3 ebuilds.
So we could keep check_license defined in EAPI 3 and remove interactive from PROPERTIES and in EAPI 4 undefine it. We should also have a repoman check so developers catch it. Regards, Petteri
