| 1 |
On Fri, 2005-03-11 at 20:21 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> | > The ``<herd>`` and ``<maintainer>`` elements are not generally |
| 3 |
> | > relevant at the category level. |
| 4 |
> | |
| 5 |
> | If they are, can they be used? |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> The DTD says they can be. Or, at least, I see no reason to impose |
| 8 |
> additional restrictions saying that they can't. I wouldn't consider them |
| 9 |
> an appropriate substitute for per-package metadata, however. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
I honestly wouldn't mind seeing inheritance allowed at some point in the |
| 12 |
future, but I also understand the amount of additional work that would |
| 13 |
entail and would much rather get this implemented in its current form, |
| 14 |
than to hold it up waiting for all the necessary tools be updated to |
| 15 |
support inheritance. It definitely would be cool, though. It would end |
| 16 |
up making the tree smaller, as many packages (again, I'll use games-* as |
| 17 |
an example) wouldn't need a metadata.xml, at all. Then there are |
| 18 |
packages like ut2004-*, which could inherit the metadata from ut2004. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
-- |
| 21 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 22 |
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead/QA Manager |
| 23 |
Games - Developer |
| 24 |
Gentoo Linux |
Archives