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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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! :)
