Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ACCEPT_LICENSE revisited

[Chris Gianelloni]

On Wed, 2006-11-22 at 04:52 +0000, Duncan wrote:
> Marien Zwart <marienz@g.o> posted
> 20061121183634.GA6948@×××××××.localdomain, 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