Piotr Jaroszyński <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Tbh, I don't have any issues with the current solution, but I may be missing > something. "Rationale" doesn't seem to help though, afaics it is just saying > that the current behaviour needs to be documented and fwiw PMS draft covers > this already: > http://dev.gentoo.org/~spb/pms.pdf - section 3.4.3
Which is fine, but PMS is just a draft. I'm trying to see if everyone can accept one solution, instead of throwing things into metadata.xml and into use.local.desc without the process being documented in one place. This is more of a proposal to see if we should even change how we do things today. Maybe we shouldn't, and that's what I'm trying to figure out... > > http://dev.gentoo.org/~halcy0n/gleps/glep-0054.html > > Please, don't use an already assigned GLEP number, it's a bit confusing. Note > that 55 is taken as well. It wasn't taken when I first sent it (as far as I know). I forgot to change before resending. Thanks for reminding me. Thanks, -- Mark Loeser email - halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org email - mark AT halcy0n DOT com web - http://www.halcy0n.com
pgpnYkNt4leuz.pgp
Description: PGP signature
