| 1 |
On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 15:09:38 +0000 |
| 2 |
hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Tom Wijsman: |
| 5 |
> >> It improves usability by providing additional information. |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > Usability is not to be found in information that is subject to |
| 8 |
> > change. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Please also set DEPEND, RDEPEND, EGIT_REPO_URI, DESCRIPTION and the |
| 11 |
> rest of them to "", because they are all subject to change. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Most of them are destructive to proper arch testing, where "" keywords |
| 14 |
are not destructive to it. As for DESCRIPTION, that is not subject. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> > So, both quotes reveal that empty keywords fit very well; |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> No, they just reveal that people didn't think carefully enough before |
| 19 |
> establishing that policy. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Check the history instead of making wild guesses about past thoughts; |
| 22 |
if you want to rate context, give facts and references to back it up. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> > by limiting its length. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> Welcome to 2014. We have tools that can aid you with dealing with big |
| 27 |
> files. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Even in 2014, we clean crap; tools aren't an excuse for not recycling. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
> > Information that is a given; as known, live ebuilds miss arch |
| 32 |
> > testing. |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> If an ebuild hasn't been tested on _any_ arch, then it shouldn't be in |
| 35 |
> the tree at all. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Live ebuilds are an exception that can be in the Portage tree. If you |
| 38 |
want to suggest their removal from the Portage tree, start a new thread. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
> In addition, it is obviously wrong, since most people will at least |
| 41 |
> test their own live ebuilds on major arches and they are allowed to |
| 42 |
> add those keywords without involving arch teams. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
So, they throw proper arch testing and snapshots out of the window? |
Archives