| 1 |
On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 4:04 AM, Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 3 |
> Hash: SHA512 |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> On 10/09/2011 11:01 πμ, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 6 |
>> Hello, |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> Is there a real reason to have <herd>no-herd</herd>? As I see it, |
| 9 |
>> it's just an ugly hack which all programs have to learn and hack |
| 10 |
>> for no benefit. |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
> What is the problem with that? Why is it an ugly hack? |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
To a simple program/user, it basically says that the package belongs |
| 16 |
to a herd called "no-herd", rather than not belonging to any herd. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
For example, in IRC, willikins tries to look up the members of |
| 19 |
"no-herd" when you do !meta -v because the bot lacks a special |
| 20 |
exception for this odd-ball value. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I would say that each package needs to have at least one herd or |
| 23 |
maintainer (which may be maintainer-needed or maintainer-wanted). |
Archives