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
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-pms] tree-layout.tex small cleanup by Ciaran McCreesh
On Saturday 19 September 2009 22:25:41 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 22:15:40 +0200 > > Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o> wrote: > > Three small edits. > > > > - Removing a sentence that has no content, but spans three lines > > No, the two sentences you're removing both have meaning: > > The first says that it's ok for things to exist in profiles/categories > that don't have a directory
Rationale for that?
> The second says that the package manager mustn't treat empty categories > and categories that don't exist differently.
Not quite. What it says is that an empty and a non-existing category are equivalent, which doesn't explain how to treat them. Your current interpretation is already a large improvement.
> Both are necessary.
No, first one is confusing to read, second one is a tautology.
> > - Simplifying the ebuild naming - since suffix is always "ebuild" > > there is no need to use an indirection > > > > - Fixing the list because "suffix is ebuild" now is redundant > > Uhm. That part of the patch doesn't apply, and the revision against > which you're basing it isn't in the repository. Where did you get > 'b78fde2' from? >
Oh. I have over 900 lines diff already. Just pulling out the obvious changes before moving on to the more subjective and debatable ones.


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