2013/2/20 Peter FELECAN <[email protected]>: > "Maciej (Matchek) Bliziński" <[email protected]> writes: >> >> Not sure what you mean with the luxury. It does tell you how to use >> it, doesn't it? It does tell you what the valid values are. So... you >> see it, and it's not a luxury? I'm not getting it. Anyway... > > Yes and no... It tells to use an architecture, BTW using Python > convention and not BNF as is expected from a syntax scheme, but it > doesn't tell that's about catalogs and not the nature of the package; > IMHO, the argument should be --catalog-architecture.
Sure, done: http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/gar/changeset/20325 > Finally, when I'm writing "luxury" I think to what was suggested by Dag, > i.e. when using only the "packaging" target on a system which has > checkpkg activated showing what should be the checkpkg stanza; and this > is not a luxury but a necessity as we have seen. Some GAR code refactoring will be required around line 1015 of gar.pkg.mk, so that you can either run or display the checkpkg command, and you still keep all how-to-run-checkpkg information in one place. Dago, is it doable? Maciej _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
