1 |
On 02/21/2010 03:00 PM, Petteri Räty wrote: |
2 |
> On 21.2.2010 14.49, Zac Medico wrote: |
3 |
>> On 02/21/2010 02:36 PM, Petteri Räty wrote: |
4 |
>>> On 21.2.2010 14.17, Zac Medico wrote: |
5 |
>>>> On 02/21/2010 09:08 AM, Petteri Räty wrote: |
6 |
>>>>> On 20.2.2010 14.28, Zac Medico wrote: |
7 |
>>>>>> Hi, |
8 |
>>>>>> |
9 |
>>>>>> Since portage-2.1.7.x is stable now, with ACCEPT_LICENSE support, we |
10 |
>>>>>> can think about deprecating check_license [1]. This will allow us to |
11 |
>>>>>> avoid using PROPERTIES=interactive in cases when it is due to |
12 |
>>>>>> check_license alone, since anything with a license in the @EULA |
13 |
>>>>>> license group is automatically masked by the default |
14 |
>>>>>> ACCEPT_LICENSE="* -@EULA" portage configuration [2]. |
15 |
>>>>>> |
16 |
>>>>>> [1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=299095 |
17 |
>>>>>> [2] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=302645 |
18 |
>>>>> |
19 |
>>>>> We could handle it like deprecating ebeep and epause. With EAPI=4 don't |
20 |
>>>>> define the function any more and the Portage version will be |
21 |
>>>>> sufficiently new to have ACCEPT_LICENSE. |
22 |
>>>> |
23 |
>>>> That's a good idea. However, we may want to deprecate check_license |
24 |
>>>> it starting with EAPI=3 since the corresponding portage versions |
25 |
>>>> already support ACCEPT_LICENSE. |
26 |
>>> |
27 |
>>> Likely there wouldn't be any breakage with it doing it in EAPI 3 but it |
28 |
>>> would be against the eclass contract of not changing expected behavior. |
29 |
>> |
30 |
>> Given that check_license already returns silently if the user has |
31 |
>> accepted the appropriate license(s) via ACCEPT_LICENSE, it's not |
32 |
>> necessary to change the eclass contract in order to safely remove |
33 |
>> PROPERTIES=interactive from EAPI=3 ebuilds. |
34 |
> |
35 |
> So we could keep check_license defined in EAPI 3 and remove interactive |
36 |
> from PROPERTIES and in EAPI 4 undefine it. We should also have a repoman |
37 |
> check so developers catch it. |
38 |
|
39 |
That's a good plan. The repoman check may have to wait for EAPI 4 |
40 |
since it might be difficult to automatically to separate out cases |
41 |
in EAPI 3 where PROPERTIES=interactive is due to check_license alone. |
42 |
-- |
43 |
Thanks, |
44 |
Zac |