On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 11:52:22PM -0500, Andrew Muraco wrote:
> noticed something that doesn't make any sense:
> 
> Andrew Muraco wrote:
> 
> >- the existing portage code would consider +arch as a subset of arch, 
> >the reason both keywords will exist is to maintain compatibility with 
> >older versions of portage which will not recognize this. 
> 
> would make more sense as:
> 
> >- portage should consider +arch as a subset of arch, however, the 
> >reason both keywords will exist is to maintain compatibility with 
> >older versions of portage, which will not recognize this new keyword.

glep19 isn't going to become a reality in the next 3 months, so the 
backwards compatibility constraints for keywords isn't an issue.

If people got this ironed out, any required keyword/metadata mods can 
just be slipped in via eapi (this is assuming the mods are sane and 
agreed upon by all, also).

And yes, I'm going to *love* abusing the hell out eapi once the 
waiting period is up.  Useful for fun stuff like this ;)

~harring