| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA512 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 24/05/16 02:31, Duncan wrote: |
| 5 |
> No argument with obsolete here, but as long as the option is still |
| 6 |
> allowed (even if ignored) for backward compatibility, isn't |
| 7 |
> "deprecated" the usual term? |
| 8 |
I meant to ask if there is any existing precedent in Portage. |
| 9 |
"Deprecated" would be my pick as well. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
- -- |
| 12 |
Alexander |
| 13 |
bernalex@g.o |
| 14 |
https://secure.plaimi.net/~alexander |
| 15 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 16 |
Version: GnuPG v2 |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJXRBg6AAoJENQqWdRUGk8BzV0QALaoe2bLRVSy1xEzQlj83XvD |
| 19 |
48cUerVji6qM1C4+e+fWPrEZ4JOwsXLjYyCOl3K3Oop3vuDaMtaA42eDcZcjczJ5 |
| 20 |
UeWp3cghzoSigGipFif5IjTNvlgW13vK5FcQ7mED+hWZM8kYfoW8pDv52AzMSAhq |
| 21 |
VBVF4NuNSkmfBqRl6l1+oVdsV+qBhlhf2JYHVGGb0Fop3VKYFmDDJ537bKUEOJ6+ |
| 22 |
K9qXZzIqTwqiNTp0rFOjNgJp9qfSLEdspsSNqI7mT+IL302is11PtTS7EtikpIsX |
| 23 |
ZPYAZYBPf7OzQLvdJozMLeU6nLW8V8gNYizksXj8LHfFdFAQEifvz+jSHA4bf0rQ |
| 24 |
WyifKCd/c2aVPSSzSE5l9wqrS/uA4S4PKINJGWALQhMrD6NzHa837MdUBnvEzJTP |
| 25 |
+6Ykq/M+qZmWS2TwIk4z97l4CFiU7QtjityLVJGWDGCNia3ikzFtgWwTmp2jBZaj |
| 26 |
O3gCulZYfIADKpGlGMXA4i09ZZOp0mf2iczrrXeJdvl8i6Q2sfUV/c1VD8rO/Pfa |
| 27 |
ZC+nlV2lIDePncfzsaHPRvDSoRThR3Hyk/ApBN/PJJojo3+uLnH4p1VQSb1cTQdi |
| 28 |
b11p9JlfVz1mCtBnHcH6r5ghL3KwyWjVrHf0dUt69aG6x4klt1TG4LNo9QU/wbX9 |
| 29 |
J5iMIYMwmyjp+X6Ge6AZ |
| 30 |
=pynC |
| 31 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives