Re: RPM or YUM does not support interactive license agreement

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Subject: Re: RPM or YUM does not support interactive license agreement
From: Seth Vidal <skvidal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 09:45:49 -0400 (EDT)
Delivered-to: rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <CAHu+3Oxtt8=ODfXjga--0ejZWK1cG6wFYPx_zDqZ+2emLCX-Og@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAA=hcWRSAQ_dLOLqgNz473i7gTkh4xjj5d-FMMAWdpJ3OMJVtg@mail.gmail.com> <CAHu+3Oxtt8=ODfXjga--0ejZWK1cG6wFYPx_zDqZ+2emLCX-Og@mail.gmail.com>
User-agent: Alpine 2.02 (LFD 1266 2009-07-14)




On Fri, 28 Sep 2012, Red Cricket wrote:

Have you tried using "expect" in your spec file?


please, please, please, don't do this.

pretty please

-sv

_______________________________________________
Rpm-list mailing list
Rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list

References:
- RPM or YUM does not support interactive license agreement
  - From: jupiter
- Re: RPM or YUM does not support interactive license agreement
  - From: Red Cricket

Prev by Date: Re: missing required NSPR / NSS header
Next by Date: rpmbuild fails on nested user-defined %if* macros
Previous by thread: Re: RPM or YUM does not support interactive license agreement
Next by thread: RPM and cross-compiling?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [RPM Ecosystem] [Linux Kernel] [Red Hat Install] [PAM] [Red Hat Watch] [Red Hat Development] [Red Hat] [Gimp] [Yosemite News] [IETF Discussion]

Powered by Linux