| 1 |
On Wednesday, August 04, 2010 08:22:23 Jeremy Olexa wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 08/04/2010 03:05 AM, Peter Volkov wrote: |
| 3 |
> > В Втр, 03/08/2010 в 17:12 -0500, Jeremy Olexa пишет: |
| 4 |
> >> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 20:22:47 +0000 (UTC), "Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar |
| 5 |
> >> |
| 6 |
> >> Arahesis (arfrever)"<arfrever@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
> >>> <snip> |
| 8 |
> >>> SRC_URI="http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/${MY_PN:0:1}/${MY_PN}/$ |
| 9 |
> >>> {MY_P}.tar.gz" <snip> |
| 10 |
> >> |
| 11 |
> >> This is a perfect example of "over-complexification" - Why didn't you |
| 12 |
> >> just use "D" instead of "${MY_PN:0:1}" ? |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > Just take a look at pypi.python.org repository structure. This URL can |
| 15 |
> > be copy&pasted from one package into another package from the same |
| 16 |
> > repository without any changes... |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> You can't copy/paste MY_PN, so while you are changing that, is it that |
| 19 |
> hard to change *one* more character? Of the 290 ebuilds that use pypi, |
| 20 |
> 172 of them use MY_PN. 83 use ${PN:0:1} for which your argument holds |
| 21 |
> some water. As I said in the original message, I think we should strive |
| 22 |
> for user friendly-ness but I guess I might be alone in that opinion. =/ |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
i'm inclined to agree with you in general, but not in this particular case. |
| 25 |
as the upstream repo is pretty well structured, and hosts many ebuild sources |
| 26 |
for us, i'd go with Peter as i'm a fan of ebuilds that work when simply |
| 27 |
renamed. |
| 28 |
-mike |
Archives