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 1NjMof-0006yF-Ez for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 22 Feb 2010 01:10:29 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0E5B7E0D7D for ; Mon, 22 Feb 2010 01:10:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from petteriraty.eu (host.petteriraty.eu [188.40.80.83]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64D8FE0AD0 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 2010 00:35:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from Petteri-Ratys-MacBook-Pro.local (d207-6-248-62.bchsia.telus.net [207.6.248.62]) by petteriraty.eu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7633930864 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 2010 00:35:16 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4B81D142.3070705@gentoo.org> Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 16:35:14 -0800 From: =?UTF-8?B?UGV0dGVyaSBSw6R0eQ==?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20100111 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> <4B81C005.8030507@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <4B81C005.8030507@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 3dd293f5-d7b7-4194-9344-b6690593420e X-Archives-Hash: 5e1000b44b8087870918227be402fbad On 21.2.2010 15.21, Zac Medico wrote: >>>> >>>> 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 behavior. >>> >>> 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=interactive from EAPI=3 ebuilds. >> >> 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 repoman >> 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=interactive is due to check_license alone. But it can still search for check_license and tell to migrate to ACCEPT_LICENSE. Regards, Petteri