| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA256 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 13/10/15 05:39 AM, hasufell wrote: |
| 5 |
> On 10/13/2015 09:51 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> that would work too, but dtd provides standardization, and |
| 8 |
>> avoids duplicating package-wide information (meaning of |
| 9 |
>> slot/subslot) in every single ebuild. |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Yeah, the only thing that I wasn't sure about is the subslots |
| 13 |
> part. With the proposed patch we don't document a subslot for a |
| 14 |
> specific slot, but for the whole package. Everything else looked |
| 15 |
> too complicated/ugly in xml and I'm not sure we even need it. If |
| 16 |
> someone has a better idea, please speak up. I think it should be |
| 17 |
> kept simple, because we want devs to fill in this kind of |
| 18 |
> information, not confuse them. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Subslots are set to indicate changes from one ebuild to another, |
| 22 |
that is loosely independent of $PV. I see it as a per-package |
| 23 |
description, so the way it's been described here in the XML syntax |
| 24 |
makes a lot of sense. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
+1 from me for all of it, too. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 29 |
Version: GnuPG v2 |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
iF4EAREIAAYFAlYel/UACgkQAJxUfCtlWe1vwQD9EW09+ofh270hbLTakjuXKSA+ |
| 32 |
ESyphRNg0pjJx6rfJ8gBANglXSYVnOM+eqryldoIlbSVgIHs+zOoBJR4YsZ/eRD6 |
| 33 |
=RUdR |
| 34 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives