> The 'useful' part is what I was worried about. If they're not, then > that's fine.
They're not. Leaving them out produces no javadoc output diff other than the information that used to be provided by @version. It's remotely conceivable that somebody downstream is consuming that indirectly, but frankly, I'm happy to break that chain. >> In reviewing this change initially, I checked for the absence, comment, >> or definition of PSTAMP in ON packages, and I found a sufficient number of >> each case that I didn't feel strongly, especially since "absent" and >> "commented" are functionally equivalent. > > They're equivalent for packaging, but perhaps not for WOS scripts that > manipulate these things. Yes, that's why I have promised upgrade testing, and will do it when my builds complete and I have packages. > I'd imagine it's fine ... though it's hard to tell why someone went to > the trouble of adding piles of 'em in as commented out on other > packages. What was the point? The commented out PSTAMP is part of the default template. Any pkginfo.tmpl that does NOT have a "#PSTAMP' line has been manually edited, and probably had a non-default entry at some point in the past. So nobody added them as commented-out, they just copied the default template and appropriately did not modify that line. >> I have a slight preference for the absolute, because I wonder if the >> chroot will someday go away, and if so, I think that means the paths won't >> need to change, as long as we keep the repos in the obvious location. > > OK, that works for me. Cool, thank you.
