| 1 |
On Tue, 2004-06-22 at 19:43 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 14:12:04 -0400 Aron Griffis <agriffis@g.o> |
| 3 |
> wrote: |
| 4 |
> | Actually, that isn't true. It was established previously that the |
| 5 |
> | order of keywords would indicate the order in which they were added to |
| 6 |
> | an ebuild. This was agreed upon about a year ago (I recall that |
| 7 |
> | drobbins took part in the discussion). Ekeyword adheres to that |
| 8 |
> | established precedent, which means that presently there should be a |
| 9 |
> | lot of ebuilds that contain the maintainer's arch first in the list. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> ..which would be fine if packages had a single consistent maintainer who |
| 12 |
> used one single arch. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I think it's more something to use while in transition to a keywords |
| 15 |
specific marker, which is more flexible. It's a reasonable rule to start |
| 16 |
out with. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
- foser |
Archives