| 1 |
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 11:52:22PM -0500, Andrew Muraco wrote: |
| 2 |
> noticed something that doesn't make any sense: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Andrew Muraco wrote: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> >- the existing portage code would consider +arch as a subset of arch, |
| 7 |
> >the reason both keywords will exist is to maintain compatibility with |
| 8 |
> >older versions of portage which will not recognize this. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> would make more sense as: |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> >- portage should consider +arch as a subset of arch, however, the |
| 13 |
> >reason both keywords will exist is to maintain compatibility with |
| 14 |
> >older versions of portage, which will not recognize this new keyword. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
glep19 isn't going to become a reality in the next 3 months, so the |
| 17 |
backwards compatibility constraints for keywords isn't an issue. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
If people got this ironed out, any required keyword/metadata mods can |
| 20 |
just be slipped in via eapi (this is assuming the mods are sane and |
| 21 |
agreed upon by all, also). |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
And yes, I'm going to *love* abusing the hell out eapi once the |
| 24 |
waiting period is up. Useful for fun stuff like this ;) |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
~harring |
Archives