| 1 |
On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 23:32:14 +0900 Jason Stubbs <jstubbs@g.o> |
| 2 |
wrote: |
| 3 |
| > Indeed. So... Can anyone think of a better name than "inherit-only"? |
| 4 |
| > Can anyone think of a good way of indicating this other than by an |
| 5 |
| > empty file? Would it be reasonable for me to file a bug asking that |
| 6 |
| > at some point in the future portage detects the existence of said |
| 7 |
| > file and displays a better message instead? |
| 8 |
| |
| 9 |
| Heh.. It'd take about 2 minutes to write and test the 3 lines of code |
| 10 |
| to implement said enhancement. The question is, is this the correct |
| 11 |
| enhancement. If so, why? I'd be more inclined to use a file to define |
| 12 |
| a profile as being "valid" rather than "invalid". |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Sure, that'd work too, I just couldn't think of a suitably clear name |
| 15 |
for the file. Erm, I mean, I was thinking of backwards compatibility. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
| Perhaps a "description" file that describes the purpose of that |
| 18 |
| profile. Perhaps even a metadata.xml that contains the purpose of that |
| 19 |
| specific profile directory within its cascade as well as a flag |
| 20 |
| indicating to portage whether it's intented to be linked to. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
That'd be nice, apart from the xml bit (pita to parse in bash...). |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Fluxbox, Sparc, Mips) |
| 26 |
Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org |
| 27 |
Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm |
Archives