On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 08:11:44 +0800 Ian Delaney <idel...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 20:01:15 +0200 > hasufell <hasuf...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > On 10/12/2015 07:49 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > > On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 19:19:33 +0200 > > > Julian Ospald <hasuf...@gentoo.org> 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. > that would work too, but dtd provides standardization, and avoids duplicating package-wide information (meaning of slot/subslot) in every single ebuild.
