| 1 |
On 02/21/2010 04:35 PM, Petteri Räty wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 21.2.2010 15.21, Zac Medico wrote: |
| 3 |
>>>>> |
| 4 |
>>>>> Likely there wouldn't be any breakage with it doing it in EAPI 3 but it |
| 5 |
>>>>> would be against the eclass contract of not changing expected behavior. |
| 6 |
>>>> |
| 7 |
>>>> Given that check_license already returns silently if the user has |
| 8 |
>>>> accepted the appropriate license(s) via ACCEPT_LICENSE, it's not |
| 9 |
>>>> necessary to change the eclass contract in order to safely remove |
| 10 |
>>>> PROPERTIES=interactive from EAPI=3 ebuilds. |
| 11 |
>>> |
| 12 |
>>> So we could keep check_license defined in EAPI 3 and remove interactive |
| 13 |
>>> from PROPERTIES and in EAPI 4 undefine it. We should also have a repoman |
| 14 |
>>> check so developers catch it. |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
>> That's a good plan. The repoman check may have to wait for EAPI 4 |
| 17 |
>> since it might be difficult to automatically to separate out cases |
| 18 |
>> in EAPI 3 where PROPERTIES=interactive is due to check_license alone. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> But it can still search for check_license and tell to migrate to |
| 21 |
> ACCEPT_LICENSE. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Oh yes, good point. |
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Thanks, |
| 26 |
Zac |
Archives