On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 17:34:51 +0200
Michael Schreckenbauer <grim...@gmx.de> wrote:

> 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?

I imagine it's more a theoretical and consistency thing rather than
something that has a real need right now. Maybe someone filed a feature
request and Zac figured it was easy to implement as the framework is
already there for the existing package.* stuff.

I could be useful though, I can totally see someone needing to accept
a restrictive license for one package, but not another.
Companies do odd things with licenses, it's quite realistic for a
company to require an agreement of some kind before one may install
certain sources, but this agreement doesn't cover other packages that
have the same license. I can't think of an example right now though. 

Maybe an Adobe EULA for flash would fit the bill - you accept it for
v9 but not for v10 and the user might want to record that fact instead
of just simply masking an ebuild.

 
-- 
Alan McKinnnon
alan.mckin...@gmail.com

Reply via email to