| 1 |
В Вск, 30/11/2008 в 17:09 +0200, Serkan Kaba пишет: |
| 2 |
> Peter Volkov yazmış: |
| 3 |
> > Also sometimes it's useful to have different HOMEPAGE for different |
| 4 |
> > versions. |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > And in general, Diego. What are you trying to improve with this change? |
| 7 |
> > The original intention was to separate common information from all |
| 8 |
> > ebuilds into metadata.xml. But obviously, HOMEPAGE changes from ebuild |
| 9 |
> > to ebuild. Now if intention is separate some information from ebuild |
| 10 |
> > into metadata.xml then, please, tell me what is the criterion for such |
| 11 |
> > information? Why not LICENSE? Currently I don't think this change worth |
| 12 |
> > our efforts... |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> LICENSE should definetely be avoided to be defined per-package. Upstream |
| 15 |
> may decide to relicense new version of packages. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Well, actually the reason we should avoid LICENSES in metadata.xml is |
| 18 |
that it's used by portage and possibly at some point of time it'll be |
| 19 |
possible to filter packages based on LICENSE. But the general question |
| 20 |
still stands: what is the criterion we should use to separate variables |
| 21 |
from .ebuild into metadata.xml and what are the benefits of such |
| 22 |
separation? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Peter. |
Archives