| 1 |
On Saturday 04 October 2003 00:28, Georgi Georgiev wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 03/10/2003 at 15:35:58(-0400), Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
| 3 |
> > We have since added a check_license function to the eutils.eclass. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> I only have one little comment. Maybe games packages should have some other |
| 6 |
> restriction? Something like the big ref F that appears for fetch-restricted |
| 7 |
> packages like sun-jdk. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
d/ling the file is unrelated to the EULA ... it isnt actually displayed until |
| 10 |
you try to install the game |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> My idea is that an "emerge world" would fail when it |
| 13 |
> tries to update the game, because check_license is going to be interactive. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
i'm going to be pushing for ACCEPT_LICENSE support into portage ... it was |
| 16 |
begun but then stopped because it was low priority. in other words, you can |
| 17 |
define the licenses you accept in make.conf and thus the check_license would |
| 18 |
be non-interactive ... |
| 19 |
plus if it's on the portage side of things you can have the license check |
| 20 |
happen before anything gets emerged thus you dont have to worry about it in |
| 21 |
the middle ;) |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> Further note: a user shouldn't need to agree to a license more than once |
| 24 |
> (unless the license changed), so an upgrade should be reasonably welcome |
| 25 |
> without the check_license part. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
again see above |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-mike |
Archives