Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Kristian Fiskerstrand <k_f@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o>
Cc: Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o>, Gentoo Council <council@g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Call for agenda items, council meeting 8/October/2017 18:00 UTC
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2017 20:01:50
Message-Id: dd00ae02-6a5a-bc40-1b7c-8c12f8b7503c@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Call for agenda items, council meeting 8/October/2017 18:00 UTC by Rich Freeman
On 10/02/2017 09:58 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> Does the PMS actually define what the correct behavior is for this > syntax?
it evaluates to a true, i.e always valid/resolved. And although explicitly naming an empty group in an ebuild is, probably?, not useful, I don't see why we'd have a definition that errors out on explicit definition but not on an implicit reduction, as the package manager needs to be able to handle the situation anyways. I'm all for banning the empty construct in QA scope though. -- Kristian Fiskerstrand OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies