| 1 |
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 19:26:18 -0400 Alec Warner <antarus@g.o> |
| 2 |
wrote: |
| 3 |
| I have no problem with basically writing up 'fake' portageq calls. |
| 4 |
| However often people tell me overlays are important, they don't serve |
| 5 |
| as multipile repos and don't have metadata/news, so they are excluded |
| 6 |
| in this specification (intentially?). Portage doesn't do multiple |
| 7 |
| repo's so any repo-related call will be a 'fake' one, that just |
| 8 |
| returns the expected data, unless someone has a better method (looks |
| 9 |
| at other portage devs). |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
The reason all that stuff is there is because a certain former Portage |
| 12 |
developer refused to let the GLEP through unless it had it... You |
| 13 |
should take a look back at the dozens of emails he sent demanding its |
| 14 |
addition to see the rationale. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
| I would prefer to hear arguments about whether news items should be |
| 17 |
| posted to announce or to a seperate ML. I would also like to see |
| 18 |
| integration via a "news" link on p.g.o. I would be willing to assist |
| 19 |
| in the latter. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Those kinds of things were beyond the scope of the GLEP, other than |
| 22 |
that the GLEP is specifically designed to make implementing them easy. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
| 26 |
Mail : ciaran dot mccreesh at blueyonder.co.uk |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives