Re: [gentoo-pms] tree-layout.tex small cleanup

[Patrick Lauer]

On Saturday 19 September 2009 22:45:15 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 22:34:39 +0200
> > > 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.
>
> The wording in PMS is sound, and says exactly what it needs to say. If
> you'd like to propose clarifications to that wording that make it
> easier to understand, feel free to do so, but the actual meaning
> mustn't be changed.

"A packager manager should not treat empty categories and categories that 
don't exist differently. Both cases should not be treated as errors."

How's that? It's not circular and quite readable. And if you noticed I 
borrowed most of your interpretation.


> >, second one is a tautology.
>
> It's not. It would be quite possible to write an implementation that
> treats categories that don't exist as an error rather than an empty
> category. We have to forbid such an implementation.
Then say so.
 
> If that 900 line diff is 'drop kdebuild', I suggest you don't bother.
Stop giving me ideas! That would be a rather sane change, as there's lots of 
cruft that was explicitly denied by council in it. Also makes editing a bit 
easier ...

> In
> any case, please learn how to use 'git rebase' and only send patches
> that are against current master -- even for patches that do apply, if
> you're basing them upon unpublished changes, we can't use three way
> merges when applying them.
Ah, that sucks. Is there any non-hellish way to use git then?