1 |
В Пнд, 25/08/2008 в 11:40 -0700, Zac Medico пишет: |
2 |
> Peter Volkov wrote: |
3 |
> > It's good feature for overlays, but I think we should avoid this in |
4 |
> > portage tree as having same information in two places can be avoided in |
5 |
> > this case: it's better and not so hard to write tool which will keyword |
6 |
> > packages based on package.keywords file and new keywords could be chosen |
7 |
> > like GLEP 22 suggests. |
8 |
> |
9 |
> I'm not sure I understand the purpose of this tool that you mention. |
10 |
> Are you saying that package.keywords might be a good thing to use |
11 |
> initially and then later, if we choose (maybe we will or maybe we |
12 |
> won't), we have the option do an automated migrations of specific |
13 |
> profiles to separate keywords like those in GLEP 22? |
14 |
|
15 |
Yes. And by initially I meant overlays outside Gentoo tree and then this |
16 |
tool could be useful during merge with portage tree. |
17 |
|
18 |
> The question of whether or not we should implement package.keywords |
19 |
> for the sake of private profiles should be considered separately from |
20 |
> the question of whether or not we choose a policy to allow the use of |
21 |
> package.keywords in one or more of our official gentoo profiles. |
22 |
|
23 |
Ok, then my answer is yes. |
24 |
|
25 |
|
26 |
With best regards, |
27 |
-- |
28 |
Peter. |