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 C5F6D13800E for ; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 20:05:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E0916E059C; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 20:05:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A7A7E0531 for ; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 20:04:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qc0-f181.google.com (mail-qc0-f181.google.com [209.85.216.181]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: iksaif) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C0FD61B40B3 for ; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 20:04:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: by qcpx40 with SMTP id x40so1235707qcp.40 for ; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 13:04:06 -0700 (PDT) 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 Received: by 10.224.185.198 with SMTP id cp6mr9730807qab.79.1344629046497; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 13:04:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.49.27.35 with HTTP; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 13:04:06 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1344600203.17434.3.camel@kanae> References: <5024EC6C.3070300@anche.no> <1344600203.17434.3.camel@kanae> Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 22:04:06 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] euscan: Need to add more upstream info in metadata.xml From: Corentin Chary To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: ccce2e6b-8f62-43c9-9e30-0527dec3ff9c X-Archives-Hash: 2fa11f95a3efa171250783088c75beb3 On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote: > Having done some debian packaging for work, I find watch files from > debian really helpful. Changing the format to a XML compatible one does > not seem like a hard work so I'll probably leave that up for others to > discuss. > > Since you are proposing this, a side question is: > Why should we write SRC_URI in ebuilds if that info is now available in > metadata.xml ? (granted that we might still want to keep over-riding > this information in ebuilds) It's not (only) SRC_URI, sometime it's completly different, sometimes would contain only versionmangle since SRC_URI contains enought informations for euscan... SRC_URI serves a totally different purpose :). -- Corentin Chary http://xf.iksaif.net