Kent Fredric posted on Sat, 15 Sep 2012 23:52:16 +1200 as excerpted: > If the usecase for this is "Sometimes people will want to write an > ebuild and not provide a description at all, and don't care that its not > useful", > then it shoudn't be supported by a nasty hack in the parent eclass, > Portage should instead support a missing DESCRIPTION feature.
Ciaranm already posted this link, from an earlier discussion, that describes why that thing's there. It's legacy and it /should/ be gotten rid of I think most would agree (I certainly do as a user; it's a hassle and an eyesore). Only nobody has cared to take on the responsibility of double-checking to make sure removing it doesn't break anything and of fixing anything they miss if it does anyway, so there the cruft still sits. http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/78813/ Bottom line, I doubt there'd be any complaints if those lines "disappeared", as long as anything broken in the process equally magically just "got fixed". -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
