[gentoo-dev] Re: Very bad ebuild-writing practice.

[Paul]

Troy Dack <troy@××××××.com>, on Mon Aug 19, 2002 [02:40:59 PM] said:
> On Mon, 2002-08-19 at 01:44, Alexander Gretencord wrote:
[...]
> >
> > Well I think we do need such ebuilds _but_ they gotta be named
> > accordingly. You have to see that it is a cvs ebuild. I for one use
[...]
>
> Have a look at Dan's kde-cvs ebuilds @
> http://www.gentoo.org/~danarmak/kde-cvs.html
>
> I've been using them for the last couple of months with no major
> problems.  I don't think it would be too difficult to adapt them for
> mplayer or any other application.
>
> I think that using cvs eclass based ebuilds instead of a snapshot tar
> ball is preferably, at least the end user is clear on the type of code
> that they are going to be receiving and attempting to compile.
>
> --
> 	Troy Dack

	Hi;

	I agree that cvs ebuilds are useful, as long as they
are named properly. Dont take away functionality from me, just
because I might shoot myself in the foot.
	Can something like this be done for the app-doc/howto-*
ebuilds?  The source these things come from seems to be generated
daily, and the frozen snapshot we have tends to be months old...
The latest is available for free, we should take advantage of it.

Paul
set@×××××.com