From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NjLqa-0000x1-Cm for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 22 Feb 2010 00:08:24 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 09742E0E6C for ; Mon, 22 Feb 2010 00:08:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1461E0C57 for ; Sun, 21 Feb 2010 23:20:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.22.10] (ip68-4-152-120.oc.oc.cox.net [68.4.152.120]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B56F672A1 for ; Sun, 21 Feb 2010 23:20:04 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4B81C005.8030507@gentoo.org> Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 15:21:41 -0800 From: Zac Medico User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); en-US; rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20100215 Thunderbird/3.0.1 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: ACCEPT_LICENSE and deprecation of check_license References: <4B8061F7.8050504@gentoo.org> <4B816881.8050608@gentoo.org> <4B81B0FC.60801@gentoo.org> <4B81B582.2070306@gentoo.org> <4B81B887.8030706@gentoo.org> <4B81BB1C.3070907@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <4B81BB1C.3070907@gentoo.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: b6f02b96-41c1-4924-be61-c7c8b396b759 X-Archives-Hash: 4e02a957505b5c4e2e3bd4bc801ce3c2 On 02/21/2010 03:00 PM, Petteri R=C3=A4ty wrote: > On 21.2.2010 14.49, Zac Medico wrote: >> On 02/21/2010 02:36 PM, Petteri R=C3=A4ty wrote: >>> On 21.2.2010 14.17, Zac Medico wrote: >>>> On 02/21/2010 09:08 AM, Petteri R=C3=A4ty wrote: >>>>> On 20.2.2010 14.28, Zac Medico wrote: >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> Since portage-2.1.7.x is stable now, with ACCEPT_LICENSE support, = we >>>>>> can think about deprecating check_license [1]. This will allow us = to >>>>>> avoid using PROPERTIES=3Dinteractive in cases when it is due to >>>>>> check_license alone, since anything with a license in the @EULA >>>>>> license group is automatically masked by the default >>>>>> ACCEPT_LICENSE=3D"* -@EULA" portage configuration [2]. >>>>>> >>>>>> [1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D299095 >>>>>> [2] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D302645 >>>>> >>>>> We could handle it like deprecating ebeep and epause. With EAPI=3D4= don't >>>>> define the function any more and the Portage version will be >>>>> sufficiently new to have ACCEPT_LICENSE. >>>> >>>> That's a good idea. However, we may want to deprecate check_license >>>> it starting with EAPI=3D3 since the corresponding portage versions >>>> already support ACCEPT_LICENSE. >>> >>> Likely there wouldn't be any breakage with it doing it in EAPI 3 but = it >>> would be against the eclass contract of not changing expected behavio= r. >> >> Given that check_license already returns silently if the user has >> accepted the appropriate license(s) via ACCEPT_LICENSE, it's not >> necessary to change the eclass contract in order to safely remove >> PROPERTIES=3Dinteractive from EAPI=3D3 ebuilds. >=20 > So we could keep check_license defined in EAPI 3 and remove interactive > from PROPERTIES and in EAPI 4 undefine it. We should also have a repoma= n > check so developers catch it. That's a good plan. The repoman check may have to wait for EAPI 4 since it might be difficult to automatically to separate out cases in EAPI 3 where PROPERTIES=3Dinteractive is due to check_license alone. --=20 Thanks, Zac