[packagekit] Handling of License Prompts

[Ken VanDine]

I agree, not just for those reasons... packaging systems just can't be
designed to deal with unpredictable methods of acceptance.  Can't be
done in a very generic way... imho.

--Ken

On 9/10/07, Richard Hughes <hughsient at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/09/2007, Justin Haygood <jhaygood at reaktix.com> wrote:
> > They can, considering they are standard RPMs, but it's a whole legal grey
> > area.. they didn't agree to any EULA, and the packages (third party non
> > open-source binaries) can't easily be changed to prompt the user to agree to
> > them at runtime.
>
> Being blunt, sorry, but I don't think broken proprietary software
> should cause the API design to be completely reworked.
>
> Packages _have_ to be installed silently by the daemon.
>
> Richard.
> _______________________________________________
> PackageKit mailing list
> PackageKit at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/packagekit
>


-- 
Ken VanDine
http://ken.vandine.org