| 1 |
On Wed, 2006-11-22 at 01:10 +0100, Marien Zwart wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2006 at 04:37:39PM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Well, we specifically didn't allow a "*" setting because of this. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Ah, I missed that. Thanks. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> > Perhaps we should make it simple and specify that no interactive license |
| 8 |
> > should belong to a group? That would mean that since we don't include |
| 9 |
> > it in a group, it won't be part of the "wildcard" NON-INTERACTIVE (or |
| 10 |
> > whatever it's called) which would make the behavior the same as we |
| 11 |
> > currently have with check_license, since I think adding group support to |
| 12 |
> > check_license would be pointless when we're trying to replace it. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> I think that would be a good idea. Alternatively portage could export |
| 15 |
> ACCEPT_LICENSES with the groups expanded. I think that would be |
| 16 |
> slightly less confusing, although I agree it will probably not come up |
| 17 |
> in practice (since it is not that likely that licenses used with |
| 18 |
> check_license will be used in a group). But relying on that not |
| 19 |
> happening would be a bit icky. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Hrrrmn... expanding ACCEPT_LICENSE would make things less ambiguous. I |
| 22 |
still think that defining that no interactive licenses should be a part |
| 23 |
of a group would be a good idea. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> Am I correct in assuming that check_license will be phased out |
| 26 |
> "eventually" (at some undefined time when everyone runs a portage |
| 27 |
> supporting ACCEPT_LICENSE)? Perhaps it would be a good idea to include |
| 28 |
> some information about how this new portage feature interacts with |
| 29 |
> ACCEPT_LICENSE in the glep (I am assuming more people than just me |
| 30 |
> were not aware check_license checked the ACCEPT_LICENSE env var)? That |
| 31 |
> is, explain licenses included in ACCEPT_LICENSE cause check_license to |
| 32 |
> be "silent", and explain if new ebuilds should be using it or not? |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Correct, check_license will be phased out, as portage will do the job of |
| 35 |
displaying the license and instructing the user on how to "accept" it. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
I do think some more information on how things currently work and how |
| 38 |
they will work could be useful, as it would remove some of the |
| 39 |
questions. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
-- |
| 42 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 43 |
Release Engineering Strategic Lead |
| 44 |
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams |
| 45 |
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee |
| 46 |
Gentoo Foundation |
Archives