On 02/21/2010 04:35 PM, Petteri Räty wrote: > On 21.2.2010 15.21, Zac Medico wrote: >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>> >>> So we could keep check_license defined in EAPI 3 and remove interactive >>> from PROPERTIES and in EAPI 4 undefine it. We should also have a repoman >>> check so developers catch it. >> >> That's a good plan. The repoman check may have to wait for EAPI 4 >> since it might be difficult to automatically to separate out cases >> in EAPI 3 where PROPERTIES=interactive is due to check_license alone. > > But it can still search for check_license and tell to migrate to > ACCEPT_LICENSE.
Oh yes, good point. -- Thanks, Zac
