| 1 |
On Sunday 17 October 2004 12:43, Luke-Jr wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sunday 17 October 2004 3:29 am, Jason Stubbs wrote: |
| 3 |
> > * Group prefix character? Previously '@' was suggested |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> $ might make more sense, so users can simply define more groups by doing a |
| 6 |
> simple GROUPNAME="bla" |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> > USE groups will more than likely be implemented at the same time as this |
| 9 |
> > and will follow the same sceme, so be aware of that when expressing any |
| 10 |
> > opinions. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> I've already setup USE groups on some systems by defining USE_GROUPNAME and |
| 13 |
> using $USE_GROUPNAME under USE... |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> > * Does "@group1 -@group2" make sense? What is the behaviour? |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Sure... @OSI -@FSF could mean "OSI approved licenses, but not ones by the |
| 18 |
> FSF" Not sure what the purpose would be in this particular case, but that's |
| 19 |
> no reason not to plan ahead. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
The first two and the third conflict. If you are after bash like syntax then |
| 22 |
you either have to drop the subtractions (as bash-like substitution is done |
| 23 |
first) or that part of portage would need a major rewrite and would not be |
| 24 |
backward compatible. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> > * Uppercase or lowercase? |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> The Gentoo tree likes lowercase usually. Personally, I'd like mixed, but |
| 29 |
> that could just be me. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Nothing to say. I don't really mind however it's done. Perhaps it shouldn't |
| 32 |
even be a concern of mine; rather I should be thinking about case-sensitive |
| 33 |
or insensitive. I think we'd all agree that case-sensitive is better. :) |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Regards, |
| 36 |
Jason Stubbs |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives