| 1 |
On 21.2.2010 15.21, Zac Medico wrote: |
| 2 |
>>>> |
| 3 |
>>>> Likely there wouldn't be any breakage with it doing it in EAPI 3 but it |
| 4 |
>>>> would be against the eclass contract of not changing expected behavior. |
| 5 |
>>> |
| 6 |
>>> Given that check_license already returns silently if the user has |
| 7 |
>>> accepted the appropriate license(s) via ACCEPT_LICENSE, it's not |
| 8 |
>>> necessary to change the eclass contract in order to safely remove |
| 9 |
>>> PROPERTIES=interactive from EAPI=3 ebuilds. |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> So we could keep check_license defined in EAPI 3 and remove interactive |
| 12 |
>> from PROPERTIES and in EAPI 4 undefine it. We should also have a repoman |
| 13 |
>> check so developers catch it. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> That's a good plan. The repoman check may have to wait for EAPI 4 |
| 16 |
> since it might be difficult to automatically to separate out cases |
| 17 |
> in EAPI 3 where PROPERTIES=interactive is due to check_license alone. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
But it can still search for check_license and tell to migrate to |
| 20 |
ACCEPT_LICENSE. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Regards, |
| 23 |
Petteri |
Archives