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 1KxRR1-0000N5-8I for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 04 Nov 2008 19:19:27 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4F55DE04C0; Tue, 4 Nov 2008 19:19:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24595E04C0 for ; Tue, 4 Nov 2008 19:19:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.255.255.39] (unknown [216.209.201.186]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DB79641B0 for ; Tue, 4 Nov 2008 19:19:24 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4910A026.1080504@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2008 14:19:02 -0500 From: Joe Peterson User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914) 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] Re: Reinstating eclasses References: <20081104174307.5bd3d834@gentoo.org> <491097EB.4070608@gentoo.org> <20081104131525.6821d0ed@halo.dirtyepic.sk.ca> In-Reply-To: <20081104131525.6821d0ed@halo.dirtyepic.sk.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: edf790f3-a241-4215-969b-af0ebeba2b7b X-Archives-Hash: 30857b36b4f99f11766f4cda221c452d Ryan Hill wrote: > On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 13:43:55 -0500 > Joe Peterson wrote: > >> Christoph Mende wrote: >>> Now the most logical name for an eclass like that >>> would be xfce4.eclass, except that eclass already exists. >> Since the new eclass is not version specific, how about simply >> "xfce.eclass"? > > why bother introducing yet another xfce*.eclass when you can re-use an > existing one? Well, my thought (without knowing xfce details, albeit) if the eclass is now not tied to version, having one with no version info in the name might serve future xfce versions (5, 6, 7...) as well without requiring yet another name change. -Joe