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 1R2Pbw-0003Xc-Tv for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 10 Sep 2011 15:36:53 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C6B5B21C1F7; Sat, 10 Sep 2011 15:36:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.22]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A3C8021C071 for ; Sat, 10 Sep 2011 15:34:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 10 Sep 2011 15:34:49 -0000 Received: from p5B085BED.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO pc.localnet) [91.8.91.237] by mail.gmx.net (mp040) with SMTP; 10 Sep 2011 17:34:49 +0200 X-Authenticated: #13997268 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19hx19zDI9hz3iaLvv+srL77tM7L7T/6lL2OXfU6z 2KKbWauPK5mynT From: Michael Schreckenbauer To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] License question for jdk Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 17:34:51 +0200 Message-ID: <2468619.gktNChOZ0Z@pc> User-Agent: KMail/4.7.1 (Linux/2.6.38-gentoo; KDE/4.7.1; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <20110910171936.66d5715e@weird.wonkology.org> References: <3996294.tE4vUV8cOn@pc> <20110910171936.66d5715e@weird.wonkology.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 418eec3206889da8b922489d1ddf97f9 On Saturday, 10. September 2011 17:19:36 Alex Schuster wrote: > Michael Schreckenbauer writes: > > On Saturday, 10. September 2011 16:50:30 Alex Schuster wrote: > > > What you need to do is to tell portage you accept the license by > > > putting the >=dev-java/... line into /etc/portage/package.license. > > > Or > > > you could add the --autounmask-write switch to your emerge command, > > > and then use etc-update/dispatch-conf/cfg-update or whatever you use > > > to update the config files. > > > > Ah. This /etc/portage/package.license thing is new to me. > > I use ACCEPT_LICENSE in make.conf. > > You know, what's the difference (if any)? > > No, I don't there is any. Just like with ACCEPT_KEYWORDS. It's just > cleaner to have this in package.license I think. > > The man pages for portage and make.conf have some more information on > this. Thanks. The difference is, that package.license is per package. So one could set ACCEPT_LICENSE in make.conf and override this setting for some packages in package.license. Now I wonder, what the use-cases would be? Why would one accept a specific license for package A, but not for package B? > Wonko Regards, Michael