Duncan wrote:
Joe Peterson wrote:
In general, it makes sense to me to have an unversioned one if there is
no version dependency - i.e. if xfce.eclass would likely work for future
ones (like xfce5). I'm not sure why, other than to emphasize that a
new version is out, upstream packages (like
On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 13:43:55 -0500
Joe Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Christoph Mende wrote:
Now the most logical name for an eclass like that
would be xfce4.eclass, except that eclass already exists.
Since the new eclass is not version specific, how about simply
xfce.eclass?
why
Ryan Hill wrote:
On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 13:43:55 -0500
Joe Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Christoph Mende wrote:
Now the most logical name for an eclass like that
would be xfce4.eclass, except that eclass already exists.
Since the new eclass is not version specific, how about simply
On Tue, 4 Nov 2008 13:15:25 -0600
Ryan Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 13:43:55 -0500
Joe Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Christoph Mende wrote:
Now the most logical name for an eclass like that
would be xfce4.eclass, except that eclass already exists.
Since
Christoph Mende wrote:
Well, the desktop is usually called Xfce4, plus that'd match gnome2...
and more or less kde4
In general, it makes sense to me to have an unversioned one if there is no
version dependency - i.e. if xfce.eclass would likely work for future ones
(like xfce5). I'm not sure
Joe Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED],
excerpted below, on Tue, 04 Nov 2008 14:30:15 -0500:
In general, it makes sense to me to have an unversioned one if there is
no version dependency - i.e. if xfce.eclass would likely work for future
ones (like xfce5). I'm not sure why,
