From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KPE5j-0000W5-UI for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 02 Aug 2008 10:12:04 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EFAD4E03AC; Sat, 2 Aug 2008 10:12:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB6C3E03AC for ; Sat, 2 Aug 2008 10:12:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.24.106] (ip68-4-92-188.oc.oc.cox.net [68.4.92.188]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42DDE65D22 for ; Sat, 2 Aug 2008 10:12:01 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <48943303.2050501@gentoo.org> Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2008 03:12:19 -0700 From: Zac Medico User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (X11/20080707) 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 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New RESTRICT=live value for identification of live ebuilds? References: <4893C048.9020806@gentoo.org> <200808021119.50926.Arfrever.FTA@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <200808021119.50926.Arfrever.FTA@gmail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: e06ffb2a-f23e-42fe-8239-92f26ec9561e X-Archives-Hash: 0a5614c2c9b2d280aaeae77768344e19 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote: > 2008-08-02 04:02:48 Zac Medico napisa=C5=82(a): > The names of other RESTRICT values are related to features which are > restricted. The new proposed value is intended for live ebuilds so its > name should be negation of this feature. I think that something like > RESTRICT=3Dconstant-sources would be better. Honestly I don't care about whatever the convention is but if people prefer some other name then that fine with me because the name really makes no difference to me. Zac -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkiUMwEACgkQ/ejvha5XGaPMJQCfR9L0OWipq1Mi3n8SrcOG5SdI ZekAoLV/JMLaA7Om2RbxfhTIgdX0nqmi =3DI0P1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----