| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Duncan wrote: |
| 5 |
> "Nirbheek Chauhan" <nirbheek.chauhan@×××××.com> posted |
| 6 |
> 8b4c83ad0808021707m52858ddfrd503a419ea8e2ee1@××××××××××.com, excerpted |
| 7 |
> below, on Sun, 03 Aug 2008 05:37:10 +0530: |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
>> How about we just skip the reversed-boolean-usage/it's-a-long-name |
| 10 |
>> confusion/argument and just call it RESTRICT=tarballs ? |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>> I know not all distfiles are tarballs, but it gets the message across |
| 13 |
>> far better than "constant-sources" IMO :o) |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> +1 |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> The simplicity of "live" with the negative connotation of restrict, seems |
| 18 |
> to kill both those issues with a single stone. =8^) |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> RESTRICT=tarballs works for me! |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I don't like RESTRICT=tarballs because I don't think it's clear |
| 24 |
enough. I think we should go with RESTRICT="live-sources". Maybe it |
| 25 |
doesn't fit your convention, I'm pretty sure we already have other |
| 26 |
RESTRICT flags that don't fit your convention. How about |
| 27 |
"primaryuri", for example? |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Zac |
| 30 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 31 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
iEYEARECAAYFAkiVcw8ACgkQ/ejvha5XGaOLFwCfU/tvAxDpYl/3urruB9B5ba+U |
| 34 |
6qwAn1bJ47ZCY0ZjW/vjR9qEc4KyDc8C |
| 35 |
=GcXp |
| 36 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives