On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 11:22:16 +0300 Markos Chandras <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 10/09/2011 11:15 πμ, Mike Gilbert wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 4:04 AM, Markos Chandras > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 > >> > >> On 10/09/2011 11:01 πμ, Michał Górny wrote: > >>> Hello, > >>> > >>> Is there a real reason to have <herd>no-herd</herd>? As I see > >>> it, it's just an ugly hack which all programs have to learn and > >>> hack for no benefit. > >>> > >> What is the problem with that? Why is it an ugly hack? > >> > > > > To a simple program/user, it basically says that the package > > belongs to a herd called "no-herd", rather than not belonging to > > any herd. > Well it is pretty obvious that no-herd means errr no herd. To a programmer, 'pretty obvious' doesn't work. > > For example, in IRC, willikins tries to look up the members of > > "no-herd" when you do !meta -v because the bot lacks a special > > exception for this odd-ball value. > Just because willikins behaves like that does not justify the removal > of this tag. God knows how many utilites and scripts are out there > using the no-herd tag from metadata. Please do not mix facts and religion. Facts are that no-herd isn't really useful. If any utilities actually *rely* on it, they should be fixed in the first place. Portage, pkgcore and Paludis have no problems with no <herd/> tag. The latter two don't even care about 'no-herd'; portage marks it as a special value and well, that's it. There's, of course, metadata.dtd too but repoman re-fetches it on a regular basis so that's no problem. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
