| 1 |
Matthias Langer <mlangc@×××.at> said: |
| 2 |
> After reading the response for bug 118607, which i filed, i was |
| 3 |
> woundering if there isn't a more appropriate default procedure for |
| 4 |
> packages with no homepages then just leaving the invalid 'homepage-link' |
| 5 |
> alone ... Shouldn't there be a way to tell portage that a certain |
| 6 |
> package simply doesn't have a homepage ? |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
It'd be nice to get a decision on this. repoman complains, but the dev manual |
| 9 |
says that DESCRIPTION and HOMEPAGE are required (except in unique |
| 10 |
circumstances). I don't see why we can't just say they are always required. |
| 11 |
Something should _always_ have a description, and if a package has no |
| 12 |
HOMEPAGE, I think putting "none" in there is better than leaving it blank. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I'm trying to go around and clean up all of the stuff repoman is complaining |
| 15 |
about, and there are quite a few of these, so I'd like to know how to handle |
| 16 |
them. We need to either make repoman not complain if HOMEPAGE="" is supposed |
| 17 |
to be valid, or put "none" in there if necessary. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
Mark Loeser - Gentoo Developer (cpp gcc-porting toolchain x86) |
| 21 |
email - halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org |
| 22 |
mark AT halcy0n DOT com |
| 23 |
web - http://dev.gentoo.org/~halcy0n/ |
| 24 |
http://www.halcy0n.com |
Archives