[gentoo-user] Opera-12 license mask warning

[gentoo-user] Opera-12 license mask warning

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 556 bytes --]

I got this after an update yesterday and was left puzzled as to what I am 
meant to do ...

!!! The following installed packages are masked:
- www-client/opera-12.16_p1860-r1::gentoo (masked by: OPERA-12 license(s))
A copy of the 'OPERA-12' license is located at 
'/usr/portage/licenses/OPERA-12'.

Is it a matter of adding in /etc/portage/make.conf:

 ACCEPT_LICENSE="OPERA-12"

or am I supposed to go through some other ritual?  Either way, couldn't the 
above message be more informative to do away with any guessing?

-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Opera-12 license mask warning

[Alan McKinnon]

On 31/07/2016 09:56, Mick wrote:
> I got this after an update yesterday and was left puzzled as to what I am 
> meant to do ...
> 
> !!! The following installed packages are masked:
> - www-client/opera-12.16_p1860-r1::gentoo (masked by: OPERA-12 license(s))
> A copy of the 'OPERA-12' license is located at 
> '/usr/portage/licenses/OPERA-12'.
> 
> Is it a matter of adding in /etc/portage/make.conf:
> 
>  ACCEPT_LICENSE="OPERA-12"
> 
> or am I supposed to go through some other ritual?  Either way, couldn't the 
> above message be more informative to do away with any guessing?
> 

echo $category/$package $license > /etc/portage/package.license

I guess it's not listed explicitly in every ebuild with a non-free
license because you are supposed to know how to unmask stuff on your on
Gentoo system.

The info is in the portage man pages

-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] Opera-12 license mask warning

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1523 bytes --]

On Sunday 31 Jul 2016 11:09:36 Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On 31/07/2016 09:56, Mick wrote:
> > I got this after an update yesterday and was left puzzled as to what I am
> > meant to do ...
> > 
> > !!! The following installed packages are masked:
> > - www-client/opera-12.16_p1860-r1::gentoo (masked by: OPERA-12 license(s))
> > A copy of the 'OPERA-12' license is located at
> > '/usr/portage/licenses/OPERA-12'.
> > 
> > Is it a matter of adding in /etc/portage/make.conf:
> >  ACCEPT_LICENSE="OPERA-12"
> > 
> > or am I supposed to go through some other ritual?  Either way, couldn't
> > the
> > above message be more informative to do away with any guessing?
> 
> echo $category/$package $license > /etc/portage/package.license
> 
> I guess it's not listed explicitly in every ebuild with a non-free
> license because you are supposed to know how to unmask stuff on your on
> Gentoo system.
> 
> The info is in the portage man pages

Ahh!  Yes, I had forgotten about that file.  Thank you Alan.

I was following http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0023.html and the 
ACCEPT_LICENSE directive in make.conf as a way of managing licenses, but then 
I found an entry about skype in package.license.  Hmm ...  I wonder who put 
that in there ...  :-)

I think this warning confused me because it installed the package and *then* 
it issued a warning about the license.  Usually the warning comes before, 
requiring user input before it continues with the installation.
-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Opera-12 license mask warning

[Andrew Savchenko]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2107 bytes --]

On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 10:45:55 +0100 Mick wrote:
> On Sunday 31 Jul 2016 11:09:36 Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > On 31/07/2016 09:56, Mick wrote:
> > > I got this after an update yesterday and was left puzzled as to what I am
> > > meant to do ...
> > > 
> > > !!! The following installed packages are masked:
> > > - www-client/opera-12.16_p1860-r1::gentoo (masked by: OPERA-12 license(s))
> > > A copy of the 'OPERA-12' license is located at
> > > '/usr/portage/licenses/OPERA-12'.
> > > 
> > > Is it a matter of adding in /etc/portage/make.conf:
> > >  ACCEPT_LICENSE="OPERA-12"
> > > 
> > > or am I supposed to go through some other ritual?  Either way, couldn't
> > > the
> > > above message be more informative to do away with any guessing?
> > 
> > echo $category/$package $license > /etc/portage/package.license
> > 
> > I guess it's not listed explicitly in every ebuild with a non-free
> > license because you are supposed to know how to unmask stuff on your on
> > Gentoo system.
> > 
> > The info is in the portage man pages
> 
> Ahh!  Yes, I had forgotten about that file.  Thank you Alan.
> 
> I was following http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0023.html and the 
> ACCEPT_LICENSE directive in make.conf as a way of managing licenses, but then 
> I found an entry about skype in package.license.  Hmm ...  I wonder who put 
> that in there ...  :-)
> 
> I think this warning confused me because it installed the package and *then* 
> it issued a warning about the license.  Usually the warning comes before, 
> requiring user input before it continues with the installation.

This warning was added just recently per bug 573050. Both Opera
licenses are clear EULA and thus were added to @EULA license group,
which requires explicit user approval if default ACCEPT_LICENSE is
used. That's why you have not seen the message during opera
installation. For fresh install it will appear unless EULA is
allowed in ACCEPT_LICENSE (I'm not recommending this, since EULA
licenses are not supposed to be implicitly accepted.).

Best regards,
Andrew Savchenko

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Opera-12 license mask warning

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2420 bytes --]

On Sunday 31 Jul 2016 13:27:59 Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 10:45:55 +0100 Mick wrote:
> > On Sunday 31 Jul 2016 11:09:36 Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > > On 31/07/2016 09:56, Mick wrote:
> > > > I got this after an update yesterday and was left puzzled as to what I
> > > > am
> > > > meant to do ...
> > > > 
> > > > !!! The following installed packages are masked:
> > > > - www-client/opera-12.16_p1860-r1::gentoo (masked by: OPERA-12
> > > > license(s))
> > > > A copy of the 'OPERA-12' license is located at
> > > > '/usr/portage/licenses/OPERA-12'.
> > > > 
> > > > Is it a matter of adding in /etc/portage/make.conf:
> > > >  ACCEPT_LICENSE="OPERA-12"
> > > > 
> > > > or am I supposed to go through some other ritual?  Either way,
> > > > couldn't
> > > > the
> > > > above message be more informative to do away with any guessing?
> > > 
> > > echo $category/$package $license > /etc/portage/package.license
> > > 
> > > I guess it's not listed explicitly in every ebuild with a non-free
> > > license because you are supposed to know how to unmask stuff on your on
> > > Gentoo system.
> > > 
> > > The info is in the portage man pages
> > 
> > Ahh!  Yes, I had forgotten about that file.  Thank you Alan.
> > 
> > I was following http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0023.html and the
> > ACCEPT_LICENSE directive in make.conf as a way of managing licenses, but
> > then I found an entry about skype in package.license.  Hmm ...  I wonder
> > who put that in there ...  :-)
> > 
> > I think this warning confused me because it installed the package and
> > *then* it issued a warning about the license.  Usually the warning comes
> > before, requiring user input before it continues with the installation.
> 
> This warning was added just recently per bug 573050. Both Opera
> licenses are clear EULA and thus were added to @EULA license group,
> which requires explicit user approval if default ACCEPT_LICENSE is
> used. That's why you have not seen the message during opera
> installation. For fresh install it will appear unless EULA is
> allowed in ACCEPT_LICENSE (I'm not recommending this, since EULA
> licenses are not supposed to be implicitly accepted.).
> 
> Best regards,
> Andrew Savchenko

Thanks Andrew, I just looked at the bug and it makes sense.  I don't have 
@EULA set for the same reason you mention.
-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]