| 1 |
On Monday, October 17, 2016 6:08:41 PM EDT Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 11:48:53 -0400 |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> "William L. Thomson Jr." <wlt-ml@××××××.com> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 4:18:51 AM EDT Kent Fredric wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > There's a lot of "but what if you care!??!" things, perhaps this may be |
| 7 |
> > > an important one to you, but some people care a lot about LICENSE and |
| 8 |
> > > some people just don't. |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > Yes, and some care about what repo it comes from. Which is why portage now |
| 11 |
> > shows you what repo it comes from as part of merge output. This is really |
| 12 |
> > no different. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> No. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Portage shows the repo it comes from because it is necessary for |
| 17 |
> the package specification to be unique, i.e. two repositories can |
| 18 |
> provide the same version of the same package. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
It does not have to show it for that function. Showing the repo is a visual |
| 21 |
thing for the user during merge output. Portage does not have to have ANY |
| 22 |
output to do its job. Visual output is a user thing. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Even if it needed and used internally, someone choose to change the outputted |
| 25 |
format as it did not contain the repo name in past merging. It may have been |
| 26 |
easier to just pass it along as it exists in code, but not sure if the format |
| 27 |
is exactly the same in code. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
William L. Thomson Jr. |
Archives