| 1 |
Maurice van der Pot wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 10:05:49PM -0400, Alec Warner wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>>Recent discussion on this ML and on the portage-ml as well as |
| 5 |
>>#gentoo-portage regarding pkg_warn() and the basic concept behind it. |
| 6 |
>>We talked about adding new functionality, about adding a warning section |
| 7 |
>>to the ebuild or to the metadata. However. all of these tend to have |
| 8 |
>>problems. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
>>The dev won't write the extra function, |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> In your proposal this would be "the dev won't write the extra changelog |
| 14 |
> content" and ... |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
>>duplication of data in pkg_{post/pre}inst, |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> ... "duplication of data in Changelog/pkg_post". |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
>>mangling of metadata.xml. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> I don't know what this means, but I don't think pkg_warn has this |
| 26 |
> problem. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> So I don't see any advantage of putting it in the changelog. I actually |
| 29 |
> like the pkg_warn idea much better. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> So tell me again, what does your proposal solve of the problems you see |
| 32 |
> with pkg_warn? |
| 33 |
-l support for reading changelogs is already in portage, pkg_warn |
| 34 |
support would only be in CVS which won't be out for a long time(*), and |
| 35 |
pkg_warn() doesn't fit in with the rest of the ebuild functions. This |
| 36 |
solution is done now, in the changelog, to be viewed by users. Metadata |
| 37 |
ideas were not liked because metadata is not versioned and the parsing |
| 38 |
would not be easy. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
* Long time being whenever, not starting a flamewar about it. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
> Regards, |
| 43 |
> Maurice. |
| 44 |
> |
| 45 |
-- |
| 46 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives