| 1 |
On 08/19/2015 10:49 AM, hasufell wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 08/19/2015 07:37 PM, Zac Medico wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 08/19/2015 09:33 AM, hasufell wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> I don't want to start a lot of bikeshed, but I think this information is |
| 5 |
>>> practically useless. |
| 6 |
>>> |
| 7 |
>>> If there has been a problem with a commit, ask the developer about his |
| 8 |
>>> repoman version (which I believe was the reason for this, unless you |
| 9 |
>>> want me to add "Package-Manager: paludis-2.4.0" to every commit ;). |
| 10 |
>>> |
| 11 |
>>> Let's just remove it. |
| 12 |
>>> |
| 13 |
>> |
| 14 |
>> The intent is to leave a record of the version of repoman used, which |
| 15 |
>> leaves an audit trail in case there's a bug in some some version (or to |
| 16 |
>> detect if someone is using an ancient version). It can especially be |
| 17 |
>> useful when new repoman checks need to be added for new EAPI features. |
| 18 |
>> |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Why is it called "Package-Manager:" then? |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Because repoman in bundled with portage, I guess. I suppose we could |
| 23 |
change it to something else. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> And how often was that useful in practice? |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Well, there haven't been any EAPI bumps lately. However, in the time |
| 28 |
that follows an EAPI bump, it can be very useful if there are new |
| 29 |
dependency features that require new repoman checks. |
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Thanks, |
| 32 |
Zac |
Archives