On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 11:52:22PM -0500, Andrew Muraco wrote: > noticed something that doesn't make any sense: > > Andrew Muraco wrote: > > >- the existing portage code would consider +arch as a subset of arch, > >the reason both keywords will exist is to maintain compatibility with > >older versions of portage which will not recognize this. > > would make more sense as: > > >- portage should consider +arch as a subset of arch, however, the > >reason both keywords will exist is to maintain compatibility with > >older versions of portage, which will not recognize this new keyword.
glep19 isn't going to become a reality in the next 3 months, so the backwards compatibility constraints for keywords isn't an issue. If people got this ironed out, any required keyword/metadata mods can just be slipped in via eapi (this is assuming the mods are sane and agreed upon by all, also). And yes, I'm going to *love* abusing the hell out eapi once the waiting period is up. Useful for fun stuff like this ;) ~harring
pgppbvJooXJSS.pgp
Description: PGP signature
