| 1 |
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 20:01:15 +0200 |
| 2 |
hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 10/12/2015 07:49 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 19:19:33 +0200 |
| 6 |
> > Julian Ospald <hasufell@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> >> There seems to be some general confusion about specific package |
| 9 |
> >> SLOTs and their meaning, since there can be several naming schemes |
| 10 |
> >> applied and documentation is either non-existent or is inside the |
| 11 |
> >> ebuild via comments. |
| 12 |
> >> Because of that it should be part of metadata.xml. |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > Why not, but what's the advantage of xmlizing it vs comments in the |
| 16 |
> > ebuilds? |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Because metadata.xml is the place for metadata and has a defined, |
| 20 |
> verifiable and useful (in terms of actual processing/parsing data) |
| 21 |
> form. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Even if you want those things to be in the ebuild, it would definitely |
| 24 |
> not be comments, but actual syntax (like exheres). |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> So basically the same arguments for not having random comments for USE |
| 27 |
> flags in the ebuilds apply. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
makes sense |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
*clicks like* |
Archives