Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: ACCEPT_LICENSE and deprecation of check_license
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 00:08:24
Message-Id: 4B81C005.8030507@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: ACCEPT_LICENSE and deprecation of check_license by "Petteri Räty"
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

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: ACCEPT_LICENSE and deprecation of check_license "Petteri Räty" <betelgeuse@g.o>