1 |
On 02/21/2010 02:36 PM, Petteri Räty wrote: |
2 |
> On 21.2.2010 14.17, Zac Medico wrote: |
3 |
>> On 02/21/2010 09:08 AM, Petteri Räty wrote: |
4 |
>>> On 20.2.2010 14.28, Zac Medico wrote: |
5 |
>>>> Hi, |
6 |
>>>> |
7 |
>>>> Since portage-2.1.7.x is stable now, with ACCEPT_LICENSE support, we |
8 |
>>>> can think about deprecating check_license [1]. This will allow us to |
9 |
>>>> avoid using PROPERTIES=interactive in cases when it is due to |
10 |
>>>> check_license alone, since anything with a license in the @EULA |
11 |
>>>> license group is automatically masked by the default |
12 |
>>>> ACCEPT_LICENSE="* -@EULA" portage configuration [2]. |
13 |
>>>> |
14 |
>>>> [1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=299095 |
15 |
>>>> [2] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=302645 |
16 |
>>> |
17 |
>>> We could handle it like deprecating ebeep and epause. With EAPI=4 don't |
18 |
>>> define the function any more and the Portage version will be |
19 |
>>> sufficiently new to have ACCEPT_LICENSE. |
20 |
>> |
21 |
>> That's a good idea. However, we may want to deprecate check_license |
22 |
>> it starting with EAPI=3 since the corresponding portage versions |
23 |
>> already support ACCEPT_LICENSE. |
24 |
> |
25 |
> Likely there wouldn't be any breakage with it doing it in EAPI 3 but it |
26 |
> would be against the eclass contract of not changing expected behavior. |
27 |
|
28 |
Given that check_license already returns silently if the user has |
29 |
accepted the appropriate license(s) via ACCEPT_LICENSE, it's not |
30 |
necessary to change the eclass contract in order to safely remove |
31 |
PROPERTIES=interactive from EAPI=3 ebuilds. |
32 |
-- |
33 |
Thanks, |
34 |
Zac |