On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 03:36:07PM +0200, Krzysiek Pawlik wrote: > Simon Stelling wrote: > > I would like you to share your comments on the attached GLEP with me. > > I like the idea with one exception: > > > Licenses that need to be explicitly accepted before installation of a > > package > > (and only these) should be package.masked by default with a header like > > the following: > > > > :: > > > > # Simon Stelling <[EMAIL PROTECTED] (20 Sep 2006) > > # This license needs to be agreed on explicitly to be considered > > # legally binding. > > # By unmasking and installing the package you agree with its terms. > > txt-licenses/wierd-license > > Why not make the ebuild ask for confirmation? Would work with versioned > licenses > (for example: txt-licenses/wierd-license-2.1 and > txt-licenses/wierd-license-2.999 - both would require ACK). Breaks portage in > a > way it's interactive, but it's already happening in few ebuilds > (eutils.eclass::check_license()).
Thats one of the basic flaws with this proposal; that data isn't easily represented to the front end code, thus it makes doing proper eula confirmation that much harder. Also, yes, license is left behind, but hacking up the front end code to walk all deps trying to identify license deps (instead of just using the license metadata key) is pretty fugly in comparison to what glep23 proposed. Further... glep23 is simple, and there already; data is ready to go, all that is required is a patch. So... write a patch (this isn't that hard), or mangle the 24k ebuilds in the tree while losing capabilities... ;) ~harring
pgpHGjpqdosUi.pgp
Description: PGP signature
