| 1 |
On Wednesday 20 October 2004 3:57 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 15:54:36 +0000 Luke-Jr <luke-jr@×××××××.org> wrote: |
| 3 |
> | > Not a chance for 2.0.51 final as that should be out in a few hours. |
| 4 |
> | > You're probably right on the LICENSE stuff being unmanageable |
| 5 |
> | > without groups. It'll first go into a 2.0.52_preX and possibly be |
| 6 |
> | > backported to a 2.0.51pX. |
| 7 |
> | |
| 8 |
> | How do you figure LICENSE stuff being unmanageable? Wasn't part of it |
| 9 |
> | to have unACCEPTed LICENSEs prompt for approval on emerging? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Portage should never rely upon being interactive. The option's there for |
| 12 |
> those who explicitly ask for it. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
On a slightly different topic, is there any chance for an option to have |
| 15 |
Portage prompt to ignore a mask and (possibly) add the |
| 16 |
neccesary /etc/portage/package.{unmask,keywords}? |
| 17 |
-- |
| 18 |
Luke-Jr |
| 19 |
Developer, Utopios |
| 20 |
http://utopios.org/ |
Archives