From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 240A31381F3 for ; Sat, 15 Jun 2013 14:22:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C346AE09DD; Sat, 15 Jun 2013 14:22:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D8206E09CB for ; Sat, 15 Jun 2013 14:22:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.33] (194.Red-2-137-19.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net [2.137.19.194]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: pacho) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 11B3433E014 for ; Sat, 15 Jun 2013 14:22:31 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1371306148.17293.5.camel@localhost> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] SRC_URI behaviour From: Pacho Ramos To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 16:22:28 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: <51BC2C55.7010506@mva.name> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.8.3 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: 9e828b3a-93b7-4ba5-8c23-9e36438375f4 X-Archives-Hash: 91d76718885e69ec1e17faee0834d302 El sáb, 15-06-2013 a las 12:50 +0100, Diego Elio Pettenò escribió: > > On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov > wrote: > > And, moreover, I guess, SRC_URI can even be used for VCS: > > SRC_URI=" > git+ssh://github.com/lol/moo.git > hg+ssh://bitbucket.org/lol/moo > svn+ssh://assembla.com/lol/moo > " > > Over my dead CVS access. > > > > Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes > flameeyes@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/ Could you please reply with some reasoning instead of that kind of reply? At least for me, it seems pretty authoritative :/ Thanks a lot