| 1 |
On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 08:11:44 +0800 |
| 2 |
Ian Delaney <idella4@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 20:01:15 +0200 |
| 5 |
> hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> > On 10/12/2015 07:49 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
| 8 |
> > > On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 19:19:33 +0200 |
| 9 |
> > > Julian Ospald <hasufell@g.o> wrote: |
| 10 |
> > > |
| 11 |
> > >> There seems to be some general confusion about specific package |
| 12 |
> > >> SLOTs and their meaning, since there can be several naming |
| 13 |
> > >> schemes applied and documentation is either non-existent or is |
| 14 |
> > >> inside the ebuild via comments. |
| 15 |
> > >> Because of that it should be part of metadata.xml. |
| 16 |
> > > |
| 17 |
> > > |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Oh that word should. |
| 20 |
> You appear to state this as fact. |
| 21 |
> > > Why not, but what's the advantage of xmlizing it vs comments in |
| 22 |
> > > the ebuilds? |
| 23 |
> > > |
| 24 |
> > |
| 25 |
> > Because metadata.xml is the place for metadata and has a defined, |
| 26 |
> > verifiable and useful (in terms of actual processing/parsing data) |
| 27 |
> > form. |
| 28 |
> > |
| 29 |
> > Even if you want those things to be in the ebuild, it would |
| 30 |
> > definitely not be comments, but actual syntax (like exheres). |
| 31 |
> > |
| 32 |
> > So basically the same arguments for not having random comments for |
| 33 |
> > USE flags in the ebuilds apply. |
| 34 |
> > |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> random? RANDOM? How about a carefully thought out and pertinent one |
| 37 |
> then? While use of xmlizing appears fine, I fail to see anything wrong |
| 38 |
> with entering a commented line in an ebuild as developers do all the |
| 39 |
> time as standard 'workflow'. |
| 40 |
> Just my 2 phennigs worth. |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
that would work too, but dtd provides standardization, and avoids |
| 44 |
duplicating package-wide information (meaning of slot/subslot) in every |
| 45 |
single ebuild. |
Archives