| 1 |
Michał Górny posted on Wed, 24 Mar 2010 12:28:38 +0100 as excerpted: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> As suggested by ssuominen on bug #311101, I am posting the issue to the |
| 4 |
> mailing list. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Currently, various SCM eclasses differ very much in the subset of |
| 7 |
> features and control variables implemented. The idea is to establish a |
| 8 |
> single subset of such variables and rules for all SCM eclasses to |
| 9 |
> follow, and maybe even develop a common scm.eclass which would be |
| 10 |
> sourced by other SCM eclasses. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Variables suggested by me: |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> a) Common variables - the variables which would have to be used by |
| 15 |
> various SCM eclasses as default/fallback values. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> 1. ESCM_DISTDIR (defaulting to PORTAGE_ACTUAL_DISTDIR/PORTDIR) |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Reasonable idea... |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
The standard note here every time source control comes up, however, is |
| 22 |
that SCM is ambiguous, conflicting with scheme (the language). VCS |
| 23 |
(version control system) seems to be the preferred alternative. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I'll let the various VCS eclass using devs worry about the details... |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 29 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 30 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives