| 1 |
On Saturday 28 October 2006 08:11, George Shapovalov wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Which is exactly why these are disallowed. Or at least that was the |
| 4 |
> original intention, which (unfortunately) was not enforced strong enough. |
| 5 |
> But then, given that we started with *no herds at all*, I don't see how it |
| 6 |
> would be possible to realistically enforce from the beginning. Now it looks |
| 7 |
> like we are actually strating to "get there". Besides, there is no |
| 8 |
> "no-herd" tag, no matter what excuses people putting it in the metadata |
| 9 |
> come up with. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Being the one who came up with the no-herd tag I'd like to explain things a |
| 12 |
bit. Basically when we started there were no herds and packages didn't belong |
| 13 |
to them. It was agreed that every package should be put in a herd, but also |
| 14 |
that metadata.xml files were to be added and their existence enforced by |
| 15 |
repoman. This enforcing was easy so it happened before it could be expected |
| 16 |
that all maintained packages (they needed metadata.xml files) could have |
| 17 |
found themselves a herd. Then I thought it is better to temporarilly allow |
| 18 |
adding no-herd than to have everyone come up with his own version of the |
| 19 |
same. I should have remembered that there is nothing as permanent as a |
| 20 |
temporary solution. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Paul |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Paul de Vrieze |
| 26 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 27 |
Mail: pauldv@g.o |
| 28 |
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net |
Archives