| 1 |
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Ciaran McCreesh |
| 2 |
<ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
> On Tue, 26 May 2009 10:13:51 +0200 (CEST) |
| 4 |
> lxnay@××××××××××××.org wrote: |
| 5 |
>> So, "::" vs "@" apart, is it something that is worth looking and |
| 6 |
>> implementing in future EAPIs? |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Isn't it just a user issue, not one we want used anywhere where EAPI |
| 9 |
> rules are in effect? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Indeed. Since the consensus is for using it as part of the UI, you |
| 13 |
don't need to wait for EAPI=4, you (lxnay) can start writing patches |
| 14 |
for portage (regardless of which operator is used) to recognize such |
| 15 |
atoms on the command line. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
-- |
| 19 |
~Nirbheek Chauhan |
Archives