Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Petteri Räty" <betelgeuse@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: ACCEPT_LICENSE and deprecation of check_license
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 23:10:10
Message-Id: 4B81B582.2070306@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: ACCEPT_LICENSE and deprecation of check_license by Zac Medico
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

Replies