| 1 |
On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 15:15:25 +0100 |
| 2 |
Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 11:01:52 -0300 |
| 5 |
> Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> > > Etc. ffmpeg is like the holy grail of local bindist descriptions. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > bindist does absolutely nothing by itself there. do you really want |
| 10 |
> > a description like "Enforces license compatibility constraints" ? |
| 11 |
> > I consider this a subset of the current bindist description. If you |
| 12 |
> > don't then maybe the bindist description should be updated. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Well, that's another problem we have there. I really like the ffmpeg |
| 15 |
> idea of 'bindist' not doing anything by itself. If all packages did |
| 16 |
> that, I would see no problem with having global meaningful 'bindist'. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> But if in some cases USE=bindist does something, then I believe ffmpeg |
| 19 |
> should describe that it just 'enforces REQUIRED_USE contraints' with |
| 20 |
> no hidden magic beneath. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Yep you're right, I guess in that case it's good to add such a |
| 23 |
description. |
Archives