| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Ok, then maybe I should rephrase that... Ebuilds should not have the same |
| 5 |
name. IIRC, it is against policy and when they do have the same name it is a |
| 6 |
bug which should be fixed. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
On Saturday 06 September 2003 07:47 am, George Shapovalov wrote: |
| 9 |
> On Friday 05 September 2003 21:18, Luke-Jr wrote: |
| 10 |
> > Obviously, ebuilds can't have the same name... For BitTorrent, the ebuild |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> But they do. We already have few ebuilds with identical names in the tree |
| 13 |
> (in different categories of course). I don't remember specifics, just that |
| 14 |
> this was coming up in prior similar discussions and I think there are on an |
| 15 |
> order of 10 of them.. Just pointing out "the fact of life" that we would |
| 16 |
> have to be careful about when having to deal with actual reorganization. |
| 17 |
> IIRC, some of them were emacs modules having the same name as the language |
| 18 |
> or some such, for which they provided special emacs mode. |
| 19 |
> And there were angry users when I had to rename ebuilds to avoid name |
| 20 |
> clashes (f.e. balsa (the "oroginal" one, actually was created before the |
| 21 |
> well known gnome app) => tbass). So this may not be as simple as it |
| 22 |
> seems... |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> George |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> -- |
| 29 |
> gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
- -- |
| 32 |
Luke-Jr |
| 33 |
Developer, Gentoo Linux |
| 34 |
http://www.gentoo.org/ |
| 35 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 36 |
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
iD8DBQE/WeNPZl/BHdU+lYMRAniaAKCZbsDxCTMJw2sNP4rkisy9dBcGjACghNsc |
| 39 |
XvE6ts4smv9dnXYYTqrj/og= |
| 40 |
=Kpkj |
| 41 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
-- |
| 45 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives