| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On Friday 19 March 2004 05:50, Heinrich Wendel wrote: |
| 5 |
> Am Thursday 18 March 2004 21:13 schrieb Olivier Crête: |
| 6 |
> > Hi, |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > I though the idea of glep 5 was to put in one place the stuff that |
| 9 |
> > doesn't change.. To simplify, not make it more complicated... with |
| 10 |
> > things for versions and flags and I dont know what, it becomes more |
| 11 |
> > complicated.. That said, I agree that this problem could not have been |
| 12 |
> > forseen when glep 5 was written, but the current content of both gleps |
| 13 |
> > are currently incompatible. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> The idea was to put things where they belong to. Information about the |
| 16 |
> package belongs into metadata.xml, information howto install the package |
| 17 |
> into the ebuild. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Depending on your viewpoint this would necessitate one of two options due to |
| 20 |
LICENSE being able to depend on information from IUSE: |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
1) Things stay as is. |
| 23 |
2) Both LICENSE and IUSE move to metadata.xml |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Both have their merits and I'm not sure which I like best, but I think it has |
| 26 |
to be one or the other. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Regards, |
| 29 |
Jason Stubbs |
| 30 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 31 |
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
iQCVAwUBQFpJhFoikN4/5jfsAQJuFAP/fKBF3IgFSW0kv0wZMlgk4tJ/ATJwCbSo |
| 34 |
889JA/S/2IR3uKOy5pgsLdVZMIeXDXryIQIxmusqiiRPlJSiIw7ioPmzvbJ0/Njo |
| 35 |
il5Jjkx+Gp5vDsG619xa0mg5t0G8oZgzHFENxgrkfkuXXWh1U1TMwLaRruzXxHUS |
| 36 |
1MjrIcensUw= |
| 37 |
=z5Q5 |
| 38 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
-- |
| 41 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives