On 02/21/2010 04:35 PM, Petteri Räty wrote:
> On 21.2.2010 15.21, Zac Medico wrote:
>
> 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 si
On 21.2.2010 15.21, Zac Medico wrote:
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
On 02/21/2010 03:00 PM, Petteri Räty wrote:
> 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 po
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 supp
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
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
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
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 l
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
