| 1 |
noticed something that doesn't make any sense: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
Andrew Muraco wrote: |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> - the existing portage code would consider +arch as a subset of arch, |
| 6 |
> the reason both keywords will exist is to maintain compatibility with |
| 7 |
> older versions of portage which will not recognize this. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
would make more sense as: |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> - portage should consider +arch as a subset of arch, however, the |
| 12 |
> reason both keywords will exist is to maintain compatibility with |
| 13 |
> older versions of portage, which will not recognize this new keyword. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Thanks, |
| 17 |
Andrew Muraco |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives