| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
René 'Necoro' Neumann wrote: |
| 5 |
| Zac Medico schrieb: |
| 6 |
|> Well, RESTRICT has long since evolved into a rather generic set of |
| 7 |
|> boolean flags and it's quite useful as such. I don't see any need |
| 8 |
|> for artificial limitations on what types of flags go there. |
| 9 |
| |
| 10 |
| For you it is just "one variable amongst others" - and you really don't |
| 11 |
| care about the relation between its name and its content. But perhaps |
| 12 |
| just for the sake of easier understanding of ebuilds, this relation |
| 13 |
| should be kept. Otherwise you'll read in future documentation: "The name |
| 14 |
| is just for historical reasons and does not reflect the content." -- And |
| 15 |
| this is nearly always a stumbling block for the non-experienced. |
| 16 |
| |
| 17 |
| Perhaps in a later EAPI RESTRICT might be renamed to something like |
| 18 |
| FLAGS - and then can really be used as a pool of flags. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Can the RESTRICT="live" value be interpreted as , 'restrict this ebuild |
| 21 |
to live repositories' or , if you want, 'this package will only build |
| 22 |
from live repos'? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
In either case, I don't see the fuss regarding this naming thing, |
| 25 |
considering RESTRICT is already being used for similar functionality. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Regards, |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
- -- |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Luis F. Araujo "araujo at gentoo.org" |
| 32 |
Gentoo Linux |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 35 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
iEYEARECAAYFAkiU9e8ACgkQNir3WYj9aLpH0wCfS0t7t9md+kPmVZsppiekybe4 |
| 38 |
TNUAoIsGXS+wnGTpqZRNLpRTLwSGG7vk |
| 39 |
=xLIG |
| 40 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives