Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ACCEPT_LICENSE revisited
On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 12:27:39PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 08:05:49 + Steve Long | Secondly, how difficult would it be for you to do what he asked? I | know it's not your responsibility, I just want to know whether you | can do it fairly easily. It's a couple of hours work, and it requires tree access... anoncvs is available, just split a patch (tree wide changes could stand reviewing anyways). ~harring pgpUUCjGzJczd.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ACCEPT_LICENSE revisited
On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 04:37:44 -0800 Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 12:27:39PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 08:05:49 + Steve Long | | Secondly, how difficult would it be for you to do what he asked? I | | know it's not your responsibility, I just want to know whether you | | can do it fairly easily. | | It's a couple of hours work, and it requires tree access... | | anoncvs is available, just split a patch (tree wide changes could | stand reviewing anyways). Yeah, because a tree-wide patch against a changing tree is really practical. -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ACCEPT_LICENSE revisited
On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 12:43:18PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 04:37:44 -0800 Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 12:27:39PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 08:05:49 + Steve Long | | Secondly, how difficult would it be for you to do what he asked? I | | know it's not your responsibility, I just want to know whether you | | can do it fairly easily. | | It's a couple of hours work, and it requires tree access... | | anoncvs is available, just split a patch (tree wide changes could | stand reviewing anyways). Yeah, because a tree-wide patch against a changing tree is really practical. Your changes will be fairly limited; pretty much tweaking LICENSE vars, mangling/adding to license/. Yes, the tree changes, but it doesn't change fast enough for such a patch to be instantly worthless (nor worthless in a few weeks, albeit a bit dated). Such a change *should* have review anyways, since LICENSE isn't something that should be arbitrarily screwed with. Keep in mind that someone else is going to have to handle the patch anyways, so it's out of your hands at that point; let them worry about how to handle it, meanwhile you're after the change so throw the delta their way. Donnie already stated he'd take a patch, so throw the patch his direction if you want things changed. ~harring pgpLXmfgrUl8v.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ACCEPT_LICENSE revisited
On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 05:29:22 -0800 Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Donnie already stated he'd take a patch, so throw the patch his | direction if you want things changed. If you don't want it to be broken, fix it yourself is hardly a viable QA policy... -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ACCEPT_LICENSE revisited
Duncan wrote: Marien Zwart [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Tue, 21 Nov 2006 19:36:35 +0100: Since check_license was (I assume) originally added because it was required for certain (mostly games) ebuilds: is the possibility to accept the license by putting a wildcard or group in ACCEPT_LICENSE compatible with those licenses? If it is not this would need some more thought: it would be quite confusing if certain licenses did not follow the same rules for groups and wildcards as other licenses, or if portage followed different rules at resolve time than check_license in eutils does. As I've read the GLEP (as proposed for update), you are missing something here. The package manager's treatment of ACCEPT_LICENSE will simply be masking/unmasking of the appropriate ebuilds. It won't change whether interactive license agreement is required or not, simply whether such a package is masked or not. Thus, accepting an interactive license will be a two-stage process -- (1) unmask it by setting ACCEPT_LICENCE appropriately so the ebuild can even be considered for merging, (2) emerge the package and hit the interactive merge section, actually accepting the license there. Setting ACCEPT_LICENSE therefore won't actually accept it. It'll simply tell the package manager whether it can consider certain packages or not. Once the package manager can do so, it can go ahead and actually display the license for agreement if the package is actually merged. Maybe it should be called ACCEPTABLE_LICENSES. Marijn -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ACCEPT_LICENSE revisited
On Wed, 2006-11-22 at 04:52 +, Duncan wrote: Marien Zwart [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Tue, 21 Nov 2006 19:36:35 +0100: Since check_license was (I assume) originally added because it was required for certain (mostly games) ebuilds: is the possibility to accept the license by putting a wildcard or group in ACCEPT_LICENSE compatible with those licenses? If it is not this would need some more thought: it would be quite confusing if certain licenses did not follow the same rules for groups and wildcards as other licenses, or if portage followed different rules at resolve time than check_license in eutils does. As I've read the GLEP (as proposed for update), you are missing something here. The package manager's treatment of ACCEPT_LICENSE will simply be masking/unmasking of the appropriate ebuilds. It won't change whether interactive license agreement is required or not, simply whether such a package is masked or not. Thus, accepting an interactive license will be a two-stage process -- (1) unmask it by setting ACCEPT_LICENCE appropriately so the ebuild can even be considered for merging, (2) emerge the package and hit the interactive merge section, actually accepting the license there. Setting ACCEPT_LICENSE therefore won't actually accept it. It'll simply tell the package manager whether it can consider certain packages or not. Once the package manager can do so, it can go ahead and actually display the license for agreement if the package is actually merged. Nope. The goal is for check_license to go away. Please read bug #152593 to see the discussion that's been going on with this. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ACCEPT_LICENSE revisited
On Wed, 2006-11-22 at 10:57 +0100, Marijn Schouten wrote: Duncan wrote: Marien Zwart [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Tue, 21 Nov 2006 19:36:35 +0100: Since check_license was (I assume) originally added because it was required for certain (mostly games) ebuilds: is the possibility to accept the license by putting a wildcard or group in ACCEPT_LICENSE compatible with those licenses? If it is not this would need some more thought: it would be quite confusing if certain licenses did not follow the same rules for groups and wildcards as other licenses, or if portage followed different rules at resolve time than check_license in eutils does. As I've read the GLEP (as proposed for update), you are missing something here. The package manager's treatment of ACCEPT_LICENSE will simply be masking/unmasking of the appropriate ebuilds. It won't change whether interactive license agreement is required or not, simply whether such a package is masked or not. Thus, accepting an interactive license will be a two-stage process -- (1) unmask it by setting ACCEPT_LICENCE appropriately so the ebuild can even be considered for merging, (2) emerge the package and hit the interactive merge section, actually accepting the license there. Setting ACCEPT_LICENSE therefore won't actually accept it. It'll simply tell the package manager whether it can consider certain packages or not. Once the package manager can do so, it can go ahead and actually display the license for agreement if the package is actually merged. Maybe it should be called ACCEPTABLE_LICENSES. How about ACCEPTABLE_KEYWORDS, too? *roll eyes* Seriously folks, the variable is to indicate that you accept a license. Hence, ACCEPT_LICENSE, just like how ACCEPT_KEYWORDS means you accept that KEYWORD. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
