| 1 |
On Saturday 02 April 2005 15:15, Aaron Walker wrote: |
| 2 |
> Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Friday 01 April 2005 02:46 pm, Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
| 4 |
> >>On Fri, 2005-04-01 at 14:31 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 5 |
> >>>i remember complaining that using anything other than profiles.desc |
| 6 |
> >>> would be (1) cruft (2) just another file for people to be aware of (3) |
| 7 |
> >>> require arch maintainers to update it (4) pita (5) i like to touch |
| 8 |
> >>> myself at nite |
| 9 |
> >> |
| 10 |
> >>Right. |
| 11 |
> >> |
| 12 |
> >>Will it break anything to have multiple profiles per arch in |
| 13 |
> >>profiles.desc? |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > no, but repoman will print a warning per duplicated profile ... we can |
| 16 |
> > just make portage team change this behavior though :) |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Sounds good to me. portage guys? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Seeing that I added that output, I guess I should reply. The reason for it was |
| 21 |
that only one profile per keyword will be checked at the moment. Essentially, |
| 22 |
the output was both to make people aware of this fact and to make sure people |
| 23 |
know *which* profile is being checked. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I figure your going to tell me that all listed profiles should be checked and |
| 26 |
I'd have to agree so, if it'll prevent the addition of another useless file, |
| 27 |
I guess I'll get right on it. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Regards, |
| 30 |
Jason Stubbs |
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives