Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Maciej Mrozowski <reavertm@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] SHA256 and indention in metadata.xml
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 15:21:48
Message-Id: 201106261720.49323.reavertm@gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] SHA256 and indention in metadata.xml by "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto"
On Saturday 25 of June 2011 22:32:43 Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> On 25-06-2011 14:23, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 6:16 PM, justin <jlec@g.o> wrote: > >> Another question, do we have a rule, how the metadata.xml has to be > >> indented? Tabs or n spaces? > > > > There's no rule, but we should follow the same rule as ebuilds — > > indentation should be with a tab that's displayed as 4 spaces in > > editors (no expansion of tabs to spaces). > > Talking from my own experience when doing retirement stuff, there seems > to be two large currents on metadata.xml in the tree, using tabs and 2 > spaces for indentation.
> I personally prefer tabs, but I also like using EAPI="<version>", > sorting everything alphabetically and even use the following depend blocks:
> *DEPEND=" > !<X-2.0 > !Y > <A> > <B> > ... > <Z> > a? ( <X> ) > b? ( <Y> ) > c? ( > <J> > <K> > ) > "
^^ is actually the main point of my "ebuild formatting nazi" agenda (usually followed by "oh why did you break formatting in my shiny ebuild!11, revert!" chants by various developers in case I happened to touch packages of theirs). I never understood the reason after keeping deps not sorted alphabetically where order doesn't matter - it's like someone purposely made ebuild harder to read - it's counter productive. -- regards MM

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] SHA256 and indention in metadata.xml Kent Fredric <kentfredric@×××××.com>
Re: [gentoo-dev] SHA256 and indention in metadata.xml Nirbheek Chauhan <nirbheek@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-dev] SHA256 and indention in metadata.xml Peter Volkov <pva@g.o>