On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 12:17:26 +0100 "Liviu Andronic" <landronimirc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 11/14/08, Walther Maldonado <walther.md@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > It was easy to work around, that is true. I just suggested that the package > > version convention would be accepted to make for a smoother integration > > into Portage. if this small mistake is not going to be corrected, very > > well, I will suggest the modified ebuild to support this inconsistency > > anyway. > > > Could you please post a link to the ebuild you'd like to propose? Or, > if bug report already submitted, the link to the bug? I feel the > Portage ebuild supports too few USE flags, and that it would be > relatively easy for the ebuild to support many more. > Liviu > The ebuild is pretty much identical to the previous version, since I was in a rush and was not interested in trying to optimise it. The previous ebuild can be seen here: http://gentoo-portage.com/app-misc/emelfm2 The only difference is that the file would be named emelfm2-0.5.ebuild, and the SRC_URI changed to: SRC_URI="http://${PN}.net/rel/${P}.0.tar.bz2"; Naming the file emelfm2-0.5.ebuild is kinda ugly, but it was the easiest work around without having to change S (the default ebuild would fail on the unpack function, where it does: cd "${S}" I can't find now the related Gentoo doc, but if memory serves right, S is one of those variables that should be read-only according to the guidelines. I don't really know why emelfm2's ebuild is not more clean (like most standard ebuilds), maybe with the 0.5.0 release some of the extra code from the ebuild can be cleaned... I just haven't looked into it. Walther. -- Users can unsubscribe from the list by sending email to emelfm2-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the subject field or by logging into the web interface.