What is the best way to _not_ install licenses?

[Da Rock]

On 01/23/12 01:13, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 13:44:25 +0000 Chris Rees<crees at freebsd.org>  wrote:
>
>> On 22 January 2012 13:13, Da Rock
>> <freebsd-ports at herveybayaustralia.com.au>  wrote:
>>> I'm back to resolve some issues with my new port ports/164113.
>>>
>>> I have to not install license as per instructions in the porters
>>> handbook (which I wasn't aware it was doing). What is the best way
>>> to achieve this?
>> Huh? Why don't you want to install the licence?
> Seems there's a little bit of confusion around. The port itself is
> fine, the version in ports does not install any license. The redports
> log he looked at was based upon what he submitted, but it is not what I
> committed. So for the port there's nothing to do ATM.
>
> The problem with the licenses framework and the linuxulator ports is,
> that the licenses framework assumes, that PREFIX/share does not need to
> be removed (it needs to be removed in the linuxulator case). My
> workaround was to specify NO_LICENSES_INSTALL=yes.
>
> Another problem is probably, that the licenses framework writes the
> license to WRKDIR/license_name and the linuxulator ports install
> everything from WRKDIR except "WRKDIR/.*". This way we get
> PREFIX/license_name, again without a PLIST entry like the PREFIX/share
> directory. My workaround was to do a RM PREFIX/license_name in
> post-install.
I tried that, but it came up error again. I haven't yet tried with the 
rm in post-extract, but I thought I'd check in first to see if I was on 
the right track.

The other issues I mentioned are a bit of a worry as well. Sorry, I'm a 
bit pedantic :)

Also, what exactly is QATty in reports? It goes with a bang...