On Sunday 31 Jul 2016 13:27:59 Andrew Savchenko wrote: > On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 10:45:55 +0100 Mick wrote: > > On Sunday 31 Jul 2016 11:09:36 Alan McKinnon wrote: > > > On 31/07/2016 09:56, Mick wrote: > > > > I got this after an update yesterday and was left puzzled as to what I > > > > am > > > > meant to do ... > > > > > > > > !!! The following installed packages are masked: > > > > - www-client/opera-12.16_p1860-r1::gentoo (masked by: OPERA-12 > > > > license(s)) > > > > A copy of the 'OPERA-12' license is located at > > > > '/usr/portage/licenses/OPERA-12'. > > > > > > > > Is it a matter of adding in /etc/portage/make.conf: > > > > ACCEPT_LICENSE="OPERA-12" > > > > > > > > or am I supposed to go through some other ritual? Either way, > > > > couldn't > > > > the > > > > above message be more informative to do away with any guessing? > > > > > > echo $category/$package $license > /etc/portage/package.license > > > > > > I guess it's not listed explicitly in every ebuild with a non-free > > > license because you are supposed to know how to unmask stuff on your on > > > Gentoo system. > > > > > > The info is in the portage man pages > > > > Ahh! Yes, I had forgotten about that file. Thank you Alan. > > > > I was following http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0023.html and the > > ACCEPT_LICENSE directive in make.conf as a way of managing licenses, but > > then I found an entry about skype in package.license. Hmm ... I wonder > > who put that in there ... :-) > > > > I think this warning confused me because it installed the package and > > *then* it issued a warning about the license. Usually the warning comes > > before, requiring user input before it continues with the installation. > > This warning was added just recently per bug 573050. Both Opera > licenses are clear EULA and thus were added to @EULA license group, > which requires explicit user approval if default ACCEPT_LICENSE is > used. That's why you have not seen the message during opera > installation. For fresh install it will appear unless EULA is > allowed in ACCEPT_LICENSE (I'm not recommending this, since EULA > licenses are not supposed to be implicitly accepted.). > > Best regards, > Andrew Savchenko
Thanks Andrew, I just looked at the bug and it makes sense. I don't have @EULA set for the same reason you mention. -- Regards, Mick
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
