[gentoo-dev] keep arch.list or keywords.desc ?

[gentoo-dev] keep arch.list or keywords.desc ?

[Marius Mauch]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 355 bytes --]

Hi,

this is just a quick poll which of these files in $PORTDIR/profiles to
keep as they are virtually identical at the moment, see bug 35398 for
details.

Marius

-- 
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub

In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be
Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] keep arch.list or keywords.desc ?

[Mike Frysinger]

On Monday 05 January 2004 23:22, Marius Mauch wrote:
> this is just a quick poll which of these files in $PORTDIR/profiles to
> keep as they are virtually identical at the moment, see bug 35398 for
> details.

arch.list:
portage.py
portage.5
keywords.desc:
repoman

i vote for keeping arch.list ;)
-mike


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] keep arch.list or keywords.desc ?

[Drake Wyrm]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 756 bytes --]

Definitely voting for "arch.list". In addition to its current use by portage.{py,5} (as mentioned by Mike), its name is more descriptive. I have been wondering about the naming of the KEYWORDS variable(s). Usually the term "keywords" refers to search-fodder, categories, and other generic flags. Any Portage gurus remember how it ended up being specific to architecture flags? IMHO, "KEYWORDS" in the ebuilds should be renamed "ARCH_ALLOW" and "ACCEPT_KEYWORDS" in make.conf should be renamed "ARCH_ACCEPT", just for consistency with their usage. But that's probably a discussion for another thread.
-- 
Batou: Hey, Major... You ever hear of "human rights"?
Kusanagi: I understand the concept, but I've never seen it in action.
  --Ghost in the Shell

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]