1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
3 |
|
4 |
René 'Necoro' Neumann wrote: |
5 |
| Zac Medico schrieb: |
6 |
|> Well, RESTRICT has long since evolved into a rather generic set of |
7 |
|> boolean flags and it's quite useful as such. I don't see any need |
8 |
|> for artificial limitations on what types of flags go there. |
9 |
| |
10 |
| For you it is just "one variable amongst others" - and you really don't |
11 |
| care about the relation between its name and its content. But perhaps |
12 |
| just for the sake of easier understanding of ebuilds, this relation |
13 |
| should be kept. Otherwise you'll read in future documentation: "The name |
14 |
| is just for historical reasons and does not reflect the content." -- And |
15 |
| this is nearly always a stumbling block for the non-experienced. |
16 |
| |
17 |
| Perhaps in a later EAPI RESTRICT might be renamed to something like |
18 |
| FLAGS - and then can really be used as a pool of flags. |
19 |
|
20 |
Can the RESTRICT="live" value be interpreted as , 'restrict this ebuild |
21 |
to live repositories' or , if you want, 'this package will only build |
22 |
from live repos'? |
23 |
|
24 |
In either case, I don't see the fuss regarding this naming thing, |
25 |
considering RESTRICT is already being used for similar functionality. |
26 |
|
27 |
Regards, |
28 |
|
29 |
- -- |
30 |
|
31 |
Luis F. Araujo "araujo at gentoo.org" |
32 |
Gentoo Linux |
33 |
|
34 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
35 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) |
36 |
|
37 |
iEYEARECAAYFAkiU9e8ACgkQNir3WYj9aLpH0wCfS0t7t9md+kPmVZsppiekybe4 |
38 |
TNUAoIsGXS+wnGTpqZRNLpRTLwSGG7vk |
39 |
=xLIG |
40 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |