From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.54) id 1Ex9qQ-0001EP-9t for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 12 Jan 2006 21:18:54 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id k0CLI95o002119; Thu, 12 Jan 2006 21:18:09 GMT Received: from aerie.halcy0n.com ([65.98.89.194]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id k0CLFsGC020864 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2006 21:15:56 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by aerie.halcy0n.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E9D07D61A for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2006 16:15:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from aerie.halcy0n.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (halcy0n.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 07662-12 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2006 16:15:50 -0500 (EST) Received: by aerie.halcy0n.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E0B507D61B; Thu, 12 Jan 2006 16:15:50 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 16:15:50 -0500 From: Mark Loeser To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] packages without homepages Message-ID: <20060112211550.GB7033@aerie.halcy0n.com> References: <1136952512.5741.5.camel@sputnik886.ruz-net> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="dc+cDN39EJAMEtIO" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1136952512.5741.5.camel@sputnik886.ruz-net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at halcy0n.com X-Archives-Salt: 0ad361f8-2705-4bc1-8bd7-a4b10bd59b6a X-Archives-Hash: bfa8a982d2f80e204c6bae9eee8849c3 --dc+cDN39EJAMEtIO Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Matthias Langer said: > After reading the response for bug 118607, which i filed, i was > woundering if there isn't a more appropriate default procedure for > packages with no homepages then just leaving the invalid 'homepage-link' > alone ... Shouldn't there be a way to tell portage that a certain > package simply doesn't have a homepage ? It'd be nice to get a decision on this. repoman complains, but the dev man= ual says that DESCRIPTION and HOMEPAGE are required (except in unique circumstances). I don't see why we can't just say they are always required. Something should _always_ have a description, and if a package has no HOMEPAGE, I think putting "none" in there is better than leaving it blank. I'm trying to go around and clean up all of the stuff repoman is complaining about, and there are quite a few of these, so I'd like to know how to handle them. We need to either make repoman not complain if HOMEPAGE=3D"" is supp= osed to be valid, or put "none" in there if necessary. --=20 Mark Loeser - Gentoo Developer (cpp gcc-porting toolchain x86) email - halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org mark AT halcy0n DOT com web - http://dev.gentoo.org/~halcy0n/ http://www.halcy0n.com --dc+cDN39EJAMEtIO Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDxscGCRZPokWLroQRAlsyAKCBYBsmWgpaeAYkej27IeR/F04VaQCfdMxu sglDFFE85MXL5K9eRFprfA4= =32Ys -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --dc+cDN39EJAMEtIO-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list