Gentoo Archives: gentoo-pms

From: Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o>
To: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>
Cc: gentoo-pms@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-pms] tree-layout.tex small cleanup
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 20:34:37
Message-Id: 200909192234.39415.patrick@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-pms] tree-layout.tex small cleanup by Ciaran McCreesh
1 On Saturday 19 September 2009 22:25:41 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
2 > On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 22:15:40 +0200
3 >
4 > Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o> wrote:
5 > > Three small edits.
6 > >
7 > > - Removing a sentence that has no content, but spans three lines
8 >
9 > No, the two sentences you're removing both have meaning:
10 >
11 > The first says that it's ok for things to exist in profiles/categories
12 > that don't have a directory
13 Rationale for that?
14
15 > The second says that the package manager mustn't treat empty categories
16 > and categories that don't exist differently.
17 Not quite. What it says is that an empty and a non-existing category are
18 equivalent, which doesn't explain how to treat them. Your current
19 interpretation is already a large improvement.
20
21 > Both are necessary.
22 No, first one is confusing to read, second one is a tautology.
23
24 > > - Simplifying the ebuild naming - since suffix is always "ebuild"
25 > > there is no need to use an indirection
26 > >
27 > > - Fixing the list because "suffix is ebuild" now is redundant
28 >
29 > Uhm. That part of the patch doesn't apply, and the revision against
30 > which you're basing it isn't in the repository. Where did you get
31 > 'b78fde2' from?
32 >
33 Oh. I have over 900 lines diff already. Just pulling out the obvious changes
34 before moving on to the more subjective and debatable ones.

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-pms] tree-layout.tex small cleanup Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>