| 1 |
On Tue, 2005-06-07 at 00:47 +0200, Lars Weiler wrote: |
| 2 |
> * Aron Griffis <agriffis@g.o> [05/06/06 18:26 -0400]: |
| 3 |
> > alpha |
| 4 |
> > ----------------------------- |
| 5 |
> > - looks nicer (subjective) |
| 6 |
> > - easier to tell at a glance if a given keyword is in the list |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> I'm for this. You can easily compare two ebuilds' KEYWORDS, |
| 9 |
> when you have the same order. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
I assume you mean comparison between versions, what happens a lot when |
| 12 |
doing ebuild updates. In that case order doesn't matter as long as it |
| 13 |
stays consistent. What happens right now is that order is far from |
| 14 |
consistent with some developers applying their own devised alpha |
| 15 |
ordering whenever they touch a package. So the problem is not so much |
| 16 |
what ordering is preferable, but that people change order without |
| 17 |
discussing it. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> maintainer's arch should be stored in the metadata, if there |
| 20 |
> is a need for. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Maintainer's arch could be ebuild/slot specific. I'm not yet convinced |
| 23 |
metadata is the right place. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
- foser |
Archives