-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 11/16/2015 02:03 PM, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Florian Paul Schmidt <mista.ta...@gmx.net> skribis: > > I’m fine with documenting ‘specification->package’ as an alternate > option. Its semantics are exactly the same as when referring to a > package by name on the command line (a warning if it’s ambiguous, > not an error), which seems reasonable. > > Thoughts? >
Hi again, sure, I'm fine with just a warning, too. Thought I'd just mention the possible problems that exist. If you want to, I can try and put together a patch for the docs.. Regards, Flo - -- https://fps.io -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWSi8RAAoJEA5f4Coltk8ZFNAH/Aw/7702YYsTfbie82VplpuY s5l4KpXpwk9rBpEaZFCAPzaE4Uj39pREwg87o+5KhrpzoGaNZGs9yQI9ivQtQfN7 8W+gxfBPLdTNyqtn5RyHEOgm6RcwfnmOu5Ci7wzihproXT3tSJ6QtstFaRVUQh+e GoWKAFh0fZQtHL6IQgix6cztoYfWxgBPnx9vctZUE1jLyITQXaF2p/eHhyJjlyB6 BYD9RZwIhAyw8DpFznhFv4Maq6YpeRb4Fo/513VAOO7cCkXbuawgVhtn8cYFY+xL rAy8tP75Tya++7K/tL3bfKaR38PeH9WiWVKxGhYI6rzZeN2w9dyn8oUbYK1m9v8= =2WEf -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
