| 1 |
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 10:14:27AM -0800, Grant wrote: |
| 2 |
> I'm doing all of my testing with net-wireless/broadcom-sta. |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> package.license seems to unmask the package which otherwise won't |
| 5 |
> emerge. ACCEPT_LICENSE does negate the need manually accept the |
| 6 |
> license. So they seem to perform different functions. skype will |
| 7 |
> still emerge without package.license? Maybe there's a difference in |
| 8 |
> the license which is responsible for the different behavior? |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
That's odd. You say that ACCEPT_LICENSE negates the need to manually |
| 11 |
accept the license, yet package.license does not? You should file a |
| 12 |
bug about this: per 'man portage' |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
package.license |
| 15 |
This will allow ACCEPT_LICENSE to be augmented for a sin‐ |
| 16 |
gle package. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Format: |
| 19 |
- comment lines begin with # (no inline comments) |
| 20 |
- one DEPEND atom per line followed by additional licenses or groups |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I read this to mean that they should behave the same way. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
The design philosophy of ACCEPT_LICENSE vs package.license seems to be the same as ACCEPT_KEYWORD vs package.keyword ... |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Curious. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
W |
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Willie W. Wong wwong@××××××××××××××.edu |
| 31 |
Data aequatione quotcunque fluentes quantitae involvente fluxiones invenire |
| 32 |
et vice versa ~~~ I. Newton |
Archives