On 02/21/2010 02:36 PM, Petteri Räty wrote: > On 21.2.2010 14.17, Zac Medico wrote: >> On 02/21/2010 09:08 AM, Petteri Räty wrote: >>> On 20.2.2010 14.28, Zac Medico wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Since portage-2.1.7.x is stable now, with ACCEPT_LICENSE support, we >>>> can think about deprecating check_license [1]. This will allow us to >>>> avoid using PROPERTIES=interactive in cases when it is due to >>>> check_license alone, since anything with a license in the @EULA >>>> license group is automatically masked by the default >>>> ACCEPT_LICENSE="* -...@eula" portage configuration [2]. >>>> >>>> [1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=299095 >>>> [2] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=302645 >>> >>> We could handle it like deprecating ebeep and epause. With EAPI=4 don't >>> define the function any more and the Portage version will be >>> sufficiently new to have ACCEPT_LICENSE. >> >> That's a good idea. However, we may want to deprecate check_license >> it starting with EAPI=3 since the corresponding portage versions >> already support ACCEPT_LICENSE. > > Likely there wouldn't be any breakage with it doing it in EAPI 3 but it > would be against the eclass contract of not changing expected behavior.
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=interactive from EAPI=3 ebuilds. -- Thanks, Zac
