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 1NjMoq-00070O-Mr for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 22 Feb 2010 01:10:40 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 55B5BE0BE6 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 2010 01:10:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB6C7E0B28 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 2010 00:41:29 +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 5B5241B4072 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 2010 00:41:29 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4B81D31B.4060204@gentoo.org> Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 16:43:07 -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> <4B81C005.8030507@gentoo.org> <4B81D142.3070705@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <4B81D142.3070705@gentoo.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: eb84d4f2-47fd-40b0-a561-5e1d3abf2dac X-Archives-Hash: 9595d667b2965f828004d89213e44c0f On 02/21/2010 04:35 PM, Petteri R=C3=A4ty wrote: > On 21.2.2010 15.21, Zac Medico wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Likely there wouldn't be any breakage with it doing it in EAPI 3 bu= t it >>>>> would be against the eclass contract of not changing expected behav= ior. >>>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> So we could keep check_license defined in EAPI 3 and remove interacti= ve >>> from PROPERTIES and in EAPI 4 undefine it. We should also have a repo= man >>> 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 > But it can still search for check_license and tell to migrate to > ACCEPT_LICENSE. Oh yes, good point. --=20 Thanks, Zac