On Thu, 2005-09-22 at 15:29 -0500, Brian Harring wrote: > Alternatives/better approaches I'd be open to, although I'll admit up > front I think what you're attempting needs to be pkg specific, which > implies DESCRIPTION in the ebuild (to me at least).
Snipping pretty much everything since I *really* don't care. I'm just dumping this idea. I was proposing it because of a conversation with a user where we thought it would be a good idea to give the user some way of knowing that a package requires some additional purchased (or otherwise obtained) portion that is not a distfile/tarball. Anyway, you seem to have done a good job of convincing me of whatever it is you think you've convinced me of, but the truth is I just didn't care enough to bother getting into some pointless pissing match over something that I didn't feel very strongly about in the first place. Basically, you "win" by default of me just not caring enough to argue anymore. I'll just wait around for portage 2.1 or whatever and see what kind of kludge we have to design then. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead Games - Developer Gentoo Linux
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
