Find attached an ebuild for vmware-console-2.5.1.5336.ebuild, VMware Remote Console for Linux. It depends on virtual/glibc and virtual/x11. It is a fetch-restricted ebuild for the simple reason that the console is not distributed separately from GSX, AFAIK. The normal installation procedure includes agreeing to an EULA when you run the install script, so I guess we will have to handle this in some way. If this ebuild does not meet the Gentoo guidelines, I certainly understand, but I figured that if Oracle is in Portage, why not the VMware console. :)
Created attachment 28905 [details] app-emulation/vmware-console-2.5.1.5336.ebuild (New Package)
I'll take a look into it. Also, if you can figure out a way to extract the license that it displays and post it here, we could add it to /usr/portage/licenses, then use check_license from eutils.eclass to make the user accept it.
Created attachment 28952 [details] END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR VMWARE CLIENT SOFTWARE Here is the licence.
This has been added to portage... enjoy
Created attachment 35266 [details] app-emulation/vmware-console-3.1.0.9089.ebuild (Version Bump)
*** Bug 55807 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Reopening for version bump to 3.1.0.9089 (this will be in CVS soon!).
Shouldn't the new version be a new bug anyway? ;p
Chris, should it? For the ebuilds I maintain, I have been reopening the initial submission bug for each version bump. I thought it made more sense to keep everything on one bug, makes it a little easier to find. However, if this is not The Right Thing(TM), just say so and I will change my ways. :)
I've always considered resolving a bug to mean it is completed. This bug is for 2.5.1 to be added. Were you to want 3.1 added, you would file a new bug. At least, that is what the users would do, and I tend to keep my practices as close to theirs as possible. That being said, since technically this is your bug assigned to you (which it is now that you're maintainer), I see no problem with you REOPENing it, but you could at least change the summary.... ;]
OK, Chris, I will change my practises to mimic yours. I feel that conventions are important, and if most developers do as you do, I need to conform myself. Thanks!
Created attachment 35330 [details] New ebuild including PATH-variable Josh, I have made a small modification to the ebuild. The PATH-variable wasn't set. This ebuild takes care of this.
Michiel, thanks for the tweak to the ebuild to fix the environment. This sucker is in CVS. Thanks, everyone!
