Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
[RISOLTO] masked by: xxxx license(s)
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours
View posts from last 7 days

 
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Forum italiano (Italian)
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
lsegalla
l33t
l33t


Joined: 27 Jun 2007
Posts: 796

PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:21 pm    Post subject: [RISOLTO] masked by: xxxx license(s) Reply with quote

Dopo eix-sync di oggi mi trovo con parecchi pacchetti mascherati. Autounmask non me li smaschera.
Non mi risulta che ci siano nuove versioni stabili, procedo a smascherare questi a manina?
Volevo anche un p' di delucidazioni, è la prima volta che vedo la stringa license(s) nel campo masked...

Code:
!!! The following installed packages are masked:
- app-emulation/virtualbox-bin-3.0.12 (masked by: PUEL license(s))
A copy of the 'PUEL' license is located at '/usr/portage/licenses/PUEL'.

- net-im/skype-2.0.0.72 (masked by: skype-eula license(s))
A copy of the 'skype-eula' license is located at '/usr/portage/licenses/skype-eula'.

- dev-java/sun-jdk-1.5.0.22 (masked by: dlj-1.1 license(s))
A copy of the 'dlj-1.1' license is located at '/usr/portage/licenses/dlj-1.1'.

- dev-java/sun-jdk-1.6.0.17 (masked by: dlj-1.1 license(s))
- dev-java/sun-jre-bin-1.6.0.17 (masked by: dlj-1.1 license(s))
For more information, see the MASKED PACKAGES section in the emerge
man page or refer to the Gentoo Handbook.


Last edited by lsegalla on Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:32 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ago
Developer
Developer


Joined: 01 Mar 2008
Posts: 1521
Location: Milan, Italy

PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

per caso in make.conf hai settato qualcosa per quanto riguarda le licenze? qualcosa tipo ACCEPT_LICENSE
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Onip
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 02 Sep 2004
Posts: 2912
Location: Parma (Italy)

PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Io ho messo
Code:

ACCEPT_LICENSE="*"

in make.conf, per maggiori informazioni vedi
Code:
man make.conf

da notare che è stato aggiunto anche il supporto al file package.license

p.s. è una nuova feature di portage-2.1.7.*, recentemente reso stabile su x86.
_________________
Linux Registered User n. 373835

Titus Lucretius Carus, De Rerum Natura - Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
lsegalla
l33t
l33t


Joined: 27 Jun 2007
Posts: 796

PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Onip wrote:
Io ho messo
Code:

ACCEPT_LICENSE="*"

in make.conf, per maggiori informazioni vedi
Code:
man make.conf

da notare che è stato aggiunto anche il supporto al file package.license

p.s. è una nuova feature di portage-2.1.7.*, recentemente reso stabile su x86.


Risolto, non avevo settato nulla in make.conf
Come suggerito da onip ho aggiunto quanto segue
Code:

ACCEPT_LICENSE="*"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ago
Developer
Developer


Joined: 01 Mar 2008
Posts: 1521
Location: Milan, Italy

PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 11:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

io non ho settato nulla e di default credo accetti tutte le licenze...se poi uno desidera applica le restrizioni!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
lsegalla
l33t
l33t


Joined: 27 Jun 2007
Posts: 796

PostPosted: Wed Jan 27, 2010 7:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Io con quel poco che so non ricordo di aver settato niente e ottenevo ieri quegli errori (il giorno prima no).
Poi ho risolto come spiegato sopra. Di piu' non so, ma vi ringrazio comunque.

:P
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Onip
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 02 Sep 2004
Posts: 2912
Location: Parma (Italy)

PostPosted: Wed Jan 27, 2010 8:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ago88 wrote:
di default credo accetti tutte le licenze...

a me, senza niente in make.conf, i mascheramenti li dava. Credo che le licenze "libere" le accetti, mentre altre che lo sono di meno ( es. sun-jdk ) di default sono disabilitate.
Se si vuole mantenere il "solito" comportamento di portage bisogna smascherarle tutte.
_________________
Linux Registered User n. 373835

Titus Lucretius Carus, De Rerum Natura - Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ago
Developer
Developer


Joined: 01 Mar 2008
Posts: 1521
Location: Milan, Italy

PostPosted: Wed Jan 27, 2010 1:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Onip wrote:
Credo che le licenze "libere" le accetti, mentre altre che lo sono di meno ( es. sun-jdk ) di default sono disabilitate.


Io sun-jdk l'ho sempre installato senza mai smascherare alcuna licenza
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Onip
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 02 Sep 2004
Posts: 2912
Location: Parma (Italy)

PostPosted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 8:31 am    Post subject: Re: [RISOLTO] masked by: xxxx license(s) Reply with quote

lsegalla wrote:

Code:
!!! The following installed packages are masked:
- dev-java/sun-jdk-1.5.0.22 (masked by: dlj-1.1 license(s))
A copy of the 'dlj-1.1' license is located at '/usr/portage/licenses/dlj-1.1'.

- dev-java/sun-jdk-1.6.0.17 (masked by: dlj-1.1 license(s))
- dev-java/sun-jre-bin-1.6.0.17 (masked by: dlj-1.1 license(s))
For more information, see the MASKED PACKAGES section in the emerge
man page or refer to the Gentoo Handbook.

a portage (nuovo), di default non piace: va smascherata. A me sul portatile voleva mettere icedtea-bin. Anche io, prima, l'ho sempre installata senza problemi.
_________________
Linux Registered User n. 373835

Titus Lucretius Carus, De Rerum Natura - Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ago
Developer
Developer


Joined: 01 Mar 2008
Posts: 1521
Location: Milan, Italy

PostPosted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 11:35 am    Post subject: Re: [RISOLTO] masked by: xxxx license(s) Reply with quote

Onip wrote:
a portage (nuovo), di default non piace


ti riferisci a 2.1.7.16 ?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Onip
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 02 Sep 2004
Posts: 2912
Location: Parma (Italy)

PostPosted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 12:21 pm    Post subject: Re: [RISOLTO] masked by: xxxx license(s) Reply with quote

già
_________________
Linux Registered User n. 373835

Titus Lucretius Carus, De Rerum Natura - Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ago
Developer
Developer


Joined: 01 Mar 2008
Posts: 1521
Location: Milan, Italy

PostPosted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 11:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ho installato giusto ieri e non ho avuto modo di provare
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
devilheart
l33t
l33t


Joined: 17 Mar 2005
Posts: 837
Location: Villach, Austria

PostPosted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 8:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ma poi la jdk sun non è stata rilasciata con licenza libera? o forse è così solo dalla 1.7 in poi
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ago
Developer
Developer


Joined: 01 Mar 2008
Posts: 1521
Location: Milan, Italy

PostPosted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 1:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

forse ti riferisci alla versione opensource di java, icedtea. al momento c'è la 1.6.2 stabile in tree
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Forum italiano (Italian) All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum