I don't think it's just a comment, I see it as meta-information. The only time that you appreciate meta-information is when you need it and its not there. On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 2:30 AM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
On 09/05/10 16:08, vlad wrote:
On Sun, May 09, 2010 at 01:09:46AM +0300, Ionut Biru wrote:
On 05/09/2010 01:02 AM, Andre "Osku" Schmidt wrote:
Hello Arch,
i'm doing (for fun) a PKGBUILD parser in javascript, and now as i was testing it with random PKGBUILD files from AUR, i noticed that there is more than one way people use to define authors... (/usr/share/PKGBUILD.proto shows only "Contributor")
till now i've found: - Contributor - Maintainer - Author
so i wonder what others should i parse ? or could you/we make a standard ?
cheers .andre
in proto was fixed in the next version of pacman. The standard is Maintainer and Contributor.
Maintainer the current person who's maintaining the packager. Contributor past maintainers or persons who did contribute in a way to the build(if the current maintainer wants to add them)
Finally a clear definition!
The main principle I use when deciding on things like this is the phrase "Who gives a shit?". :P
Seriously... it is a comment so it does nothing. Does either label make it less informative if it is the only one there?
Allan
-- "All musicians are drug addicts, no question about it. The ecstasy we get during a concert is proof enough. yet there is a slight difference between us, the musicians, and the typical 'street-junkie'... Instead of consuming powder, we consume vibrations" Will et/ou Gregory Eric Sanderson Turcot Temlett MacDonnell Forbes et/ou Touffa! :)