Duncan wrote:
> Joe Peterson wrote:
>> In general, it makes sense to me to have an unversioned one if there is
>> no version dependency - i.e. if xfce.eclass would likely work for future
>> ones (like "xfce5"). I'm not sure why, other than to emphasize that a
>> new version is out, upstream packa
Joe Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED],
excerpted below, on Tue, 04 Nov 2008 14:30:15 -0500:
> In general, it makes sense to me to have an unversioned one if there is
> no version dependency - i.e. if xfce.eclass would likely work for future
> ones (like "xfce5"). I'm not sure
Christoph Mende wrote:
> Well, the desktop is usually called Xfce4, plus that'd match gnome2...
> and more or less kde4
In general, it makes sense to me to have an unversioned one if there is no
version dependency - i.e. if xfce.eclass would likely work for future ones
(like "xfce5"). I'm not sur
On Tue, 4 Nov 2008 13:15:25 -0600
Ryan Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 13:43:55 -0500
> Joe Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Christoph Mende wrote:
> > > Now the most logical name for an eclass like that
> > > would be xfce4.eclass, except that eclass already exists
Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 13:43:55 -0500
> Joe Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Christoph Mende wrote:
>>> Now the most logical name for an eclass like that
>>> would be xfce4.eclass, except that eclass already exists.
>> Since the new eclass is not version specific, how about
On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 13:43:55 -0500
Joe Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Christoph Mende wrote:
> > Now the most logical name for an eclass like that
> > would be xfce4.eclass, except that eclass already exists.
>
> Since the new eclass is not version specific, how about simply
> "xfce.eclass
