| 1 |
On Tue, Nov 21, 2006 at 12:56:22AM +0100, Marius Mauch wrote: |
| 2 |
> Motivation |
| 3 |
> ========== |
| 4 |
<snip> |
| 5 |
> Furthermore, some software requires that a user interactively accept its |
| 6 |
> license for its author's to consider it legally binding. This is |
| 7 |
> currently implemented using ``eutils.eclass``. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
This seems to *imply* ACCEPT_LICENSE will replace this mechanism. Is |
| 10 |
that the case? If it is, perhaps it could explicitly say so here? |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
<snip> |
| 13 |
> Backwards Compatibility |
| 14 |
> ======================= |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> There should be no change to the user experience without the user |
| 17 |
> explicitly choosing to do so. This mandates that the |
| 18 |
> configuration variable be named ``ACCEPT_LICENSE`` as some users may |
| 19 |
> already have it set due to ebuilds using ``eutil.eclass``'s |
| 20 |
> implementation. It also mandates that the default ``ACCEPT_LICENSE`` be |
| 21 |
> set to ``@NON-MUST-HAVE-READ`` in the main gentoo repository as implementations |
| 22 |
> are not required to provide an internal default. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
At first I thought this paragraph was incorrect. But when I looked at |
| 25 |
the check_license code in eutils.eclass I noticed it also uses an |
| 26 |
ACCEPT_LICENSE var. I never realised it did this since I only |
| 27 |
encountered check_license interactively and it did not tell me about |
| 28 |
ACCEPT_LICENSE then. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Will portage export ACCEPT_LICENSE with the groups, wildcards and |
| 31 |
package.license entries expanded? If I try to emerge something with a |
| 32 |
license not in NON-MUST-HAVE-READ, then accept the license by setting |
| 33 |
it to "*" or including a group including this license, then merge the |
| 34 |
ebuild, I would expect "check_license" to treat the license as |
| 35 |
"accepted". |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Since check_license was (I assume) originally added because it was |
| 38 |
required for certain (mostly games) ebuilds: is the possibility to |
| 39 |
accept the license by putting a wildcard or group in ACCEPT_LICENSE |
| 40 |
"compatible" with those licenses? If it is not this would need some |
| 41 |
more thought: it would be quite confusing if certain licenses did not |
| 42 |
follow the same "rules" for groups and wildcards as other licenses, or |
| 43 |
if portage followed different rules at resolve time than check_license |
| 44 |
in eutils does. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
-- |
| 47 |
Marien. |
Archives