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