В Пнд, 06/10/2008 в 15:59 +0200, Robert Buchholz пишет:
> On Sunday 05 October 2008, Thilo Bangert wrote:
> > HOMEPAGE="http://this-package-has-no-homepage.gentoo.org/";
>
> Why not use our package site for this, i.e.
> HOMEPAGE="http://packages.gentoo.org/package/${CAT}/${PN}";
This is not homep
On Sunday 05 October 2008, Thilo Bangert wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 03:44:20 -0700
> >
> > "Robin H. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Either we need special cases to declare that it no longer has a
> > > homepage, or we need to allow the empty
On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 08:49:04 +0200
Hans de Graaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think the suggestion is to have one generic homepage for all
> packages without one, not a Gentoo-specific homepage for each project.
+1
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/abandoned/
Put that in all ebuilds for packages
On Sun, 2008-10-05 at 23:38 -0700, Josh Saddler wrote:
> Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008, Robin H Johnson wrote:
> >
> HOMEPAGE="http://this-package-has-no-homepage.gentoo.org/";
> >>> That would impose needless lookups on subdomains of gentoo.org for
> >>> clients trying to
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008, Robin H Johnson wrote:
>
HOMEPAGE="http://this-package-has-no-homepage.gentoo.org/";
>>> That would impose needless lookups on subdomains of gentoo.org for
>>> clients trying to load the homepage.
>> http://gentoo.org/package-has-no-homepage/ t
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008, Robin H Johnson wrote:
>> > HOMEPAGE="http://this-package-has-no-homepage.gentoo.org/";
>> That would impose needless lookups on subdomains of gentoo.org for
>> clients trying to load the homepage.
> http://gentoo.org/package-has-no-homepage/ then.
Couldn't a page be cre
On Sun, Oct 05, 2008 at 07:52:48PM -0700, Alec Warner wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 2:55 PM, Thilo Bangert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 03:44:20 -0700
> >>
> >> "Robin H. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > Either we need
On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 2:55 PM, Thilo Bangert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 03:44:20 -0700
>>
>> "Robin H. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Either we need special cases to declare that it no longer has a
>> > homepage, or we nee
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 03:44:20 -0700
>
> "Robin H. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Either we need special cases to declare that it no longer has a
> > homepage, or we need to allow the empty HOMEPAGE.
>
> HOMEPAGE="( )"
HOMEPAGE="http://this-package
On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 03:44:20 -0700
"Robin H. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Either we need special cases to declare that it no longer has a
> homepage, or we need to allow the empty HOMEPAGE.
HOMEPAGE="( )"
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sunday 05 of October 2008 12:44:20 Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> I'm in favour of allowing the variable to empty, because I'm a lazy
> upstream, and I haven't even made a basic webpage for some of my
> projects (diradm, localshell, readahead-list, etc).
lol
+1 for allowing empty $HOMEPAGE
For projects where the upstream has vanished off the face of the planet,
and the project was reasonably obscure, but the code works fine still,
there's problems with either the requirements of HOMEPAGE or the repoman
check.
From PMS:
\item[HOMEPAGE] The URI or URIs for a package's homepage, inclu
12 matches
Mail list logo