| 1 |
On 09/15/2012 08:06 AM, Duncan wrote: |
| 2 |
> Rick \"Zero_Chaos\" Farina posted on Fri, 14 Sep 2012 19:43:42 -0400 as |
| 3 |
> excerpted: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> If anyone wants to explain to me why that DESCRIPTION line is so |
| 6 |
>> critical that it must exist yet not important enough to put something |
| 7 |
>> worthwhile in I'm all ears. Until that point I'll probably keep bringing |
| 8 |
>> this up. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Did you read the up-thread link Ciaran posted? |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/78813/ |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> IOW, it's legacy. They could probably "disappear", if anybody was |
| 15 |
> willing to spend the time investigating, then fixing anything that broke |
| 16 |
> when the lines "disappeared". But it's simply easier to go with "don't |
| 17 |
> fix what's not broken", and just leave it be. Let someone else take that |
| 18 |
> risk. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> But as long as any breakage "magically disappeared" to wherever the |
| 21 |
> DESCRIPTIONs went, I don't expect there'd be many complaints... |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I've gone ahead and removed them. I can't imagine that it will break |
| 24 |
anything. After the change, all of the ebuilds still have non-empty |
| 25 |
DESCRIPTION metadata. |
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Thanks, |
| 28 |
Zac |
Archives