From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1071 invoked from network); 3 Dec 2004 17:48:21 +0000 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (156.56.111.197) by lists.gentoo.org with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 3 Dec 2004 17:48:21 +0000 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([156.56.111.196] helo=parrot.gentoo.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.41) id 1CaHXZ-0004xn-Hs for arch-gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Fri, 03 Dec 2004 17:48:21 +0000 Received: (qmail 23 invoked by uid 89); 3 Dec 2004 17:48:21 +0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 27292 invoked from network); 3 Dec 2004 17:48:20 +0000 From: Luke-Jr To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 17:48:51 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 References: <20041202193116.257eef32@snowdrop.home> <200412032332.14996.jstubbs@gentoo.org> <1102094351.4301.3.camel@localhost> In-Reply-To: <1102094351.4301.3.camel@localhost> IM-Address: luke-jr@jabber.org Public-GPG-Key-URI: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=0xD53E9583 Public-GPG-Key: 0xD53E9583 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart7450988.NHsF0vqJNC"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200412031748.57723.luke-jr@utopios.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Identifying inherit-only / usable profiles X-Archives-Salt: a13d45c6-675b-4446-b168-9fa5396620c3 X-Archives-Hash: 9a49576148093ef650f4cea61f8d72c9 --nextPart7450988.NHsF0vqJNC Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Friday 03 December 2004 5:19 pm, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > On Fri, 2004-12-03 at 23:32 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: > > Heh.. It'd take about 2 minutes to write and test the 3 lines of code to > > implement said enhancement. The question is, is this the correct > > enhancement. If so, why? I'd be more inclined to use a file to define a > > profile as being "valid" rather than "invalid". > > That's kinda like defining a profile as "non-deprecated" rather than > "deprecated." To me, it doesn't make sense to say when something works > properly -- that should be expected. A better comparison would be like defining them as "completed" instead of=20 "incomplete". If a valid-marker is used, it can (and probably should) be inherited. If an= =20 invalid-marker is used, you almost *never* want to inherit it. Alternatively, it would be possible to mark profiles as either valid or=20 invalid and inherit the value from parents. =2D-=20 Luke-Jr Developer, Utopios http://utopios.org/ --nextPart7450988.NHsF0vqJNC Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBBsKcJZl/BHdU+lYMRAl30AJ9NUm8y4jOYttQQ42VZZmJg4mLlqwCeJ/DP UlueKqin+H41czcX0GivMBE= =CkW4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart7450988.NHsF0vqJNC--