On Saturday 02 April 2005 15:15, Aaron Walker wrote: > Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Friday 01 April 2005 02:46 pm, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > >>On Fri, 2005-04-01 at 14:31 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: > >>>i remember complaining that using anything other than profiles.desc > >>> would be (1) cruft (2) just another file for people to be aware of (3) > >>> require arch maintainers to update it (4) pita (5) i like to touch > >>> myself at nite > >> > >>Right. > >> > >>Will it break anything to have multiple profiles per arch in > >>profiles.desc? > > > > no, but repoman will print a warning per duplicated profile ... we can > > just make portage team change this behavior though :) > > Sounds good to me. portage guys?
Seeing that I added that output, I guess I should reply. The reason for it was that only one profile per keyword will be checked at the moment. Essentially, the output was both to make people aware of this fact and to make sure people know *which* profile is being checked. I figure your going to tell me that all listed profiles should be checked and I'd have to agree so, if it'll prevent the addition of another useless file, I guess I'll get right on it. Regards, Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
