On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 20:01:15 +0200 hasufell <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 10/12/2015 07:49 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 19:19:33 +0200 > > Julian Ospald <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> There seems to be some general confusion about specific package > >> SLOTs and their meaning, since there can be several naming schemes > >> applied and documentation is either non-existent or is inside the > >> ebuild via comments. > >> Because of that it should be part of metadata.xml. > > > > Oh that word should. You appear to state this as fact. > > Why not, but what's the advantage of xmlizing it vs comments in the > > ebuilds? > > > > Because metadata.xml is the place for metadata and has a defined, > verifiable and useful (in terms of actual processing/parsing data) > form. > > Even if you want those things to be in the ebuild, it would definitely > not be comments, but actual syntax (like exheres). > > So basically the same arguments for not having random comments for USE > flags in the ebuilds apply. > random? RANDOM? How about a carefully thought out and pertinent one then? While use of xmlizing appears fine, I fail to see anything wrong with entering a commented line in an ebuild as developers do all the time as standard 'workflow'. Just my 2 phennigs worth. -- kind regards Ian Delaney
