From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E635A138010 for ; Sat, 15 Sep 2012 17:02:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D4D73E06C2; Sat, 15 Sep 2012 17:02:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51E39E0654 for ; Sat, 15 Sep 2012 17:01:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.26.5] (ip98-164-193-252.oc.oc.cox.net [98.164.193.252]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: zmedico) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C8C84335E30 for ; Sat, 15 Sep 2012 17:01:50 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <5054B47D.2010300@gentoo.org> Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2012 10:01:49 -0700 From: Zac Medico User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120901 Thunderbird/15.0 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: DESCRIPTION="Based on the ${ECLASS} eclass" References: <505398EA.8050307@gentoo.org> <20120914215619.42ce1a00@googlemail.com> <50539F18.80108@gentoo.org> <20120914232713.6bfdd2d4@pomiocik.lan> <5053C12E.3030004@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: d191625e-d171-486e-95f8-7e0f5e9edfd5 X-Archives-Hash: ce060102aa47afc2306515719995d129 On 09/15/2012 08:06 AM, Duncan wrote: > Rick \"Zero_Chaos\" Farina posted on Fri, 14 Sep 2012 19:43:42 -0400 as > excerpted: > >> If anyone wants to explain to me why that DESCRIPTION line is so >> critical that it must exist yet not important enough to put something >> worthwhile in I'm all ears. Until that point I'll probably keep bringing >> this up. > > Did you read the up-thread link Ciaran posted? > > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/78813/ > > IOW, it's legacy. They could probably "disappear", if anybody was > willing to spend the time investigating, then fixing anything that broke > when the lines "disappeared". But it's simply easier to go with "don't > fix what's not broken", and just leave it be. Let someone else take that > risk. > > But as long as any breakage "magically disappeared" to wherever the > DESCRIPTIONs went, I don't expect there'd be many complaints... I've gone ahead and removed them. I can't imagine that it will break anything. After the change, all of the ebuilds still have non-empty DESCRIPTION metadata. -- Thanks, Zac