On Tuesday 24 July 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Petteri Räty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But is there anything that makes use of version specific DESCRIPTION
atoms?
Yep. Have a look at sys-devel/gcc for example. Some versions include
various extensions, and say so in DESCRIPTION.
eh, i'm not
On Tuesday 24 July 2007, Luca Barbato wrote:
Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote:
That would make it
impossible to use ${PV} and more importantly also remove some
duplication.
It isn't duplicated, description is per ebuild and could change,
metadata is for the package as whole.
can you point
Petteri Räty [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I did see anything in devmanual taking a stance on this issue:
http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/variables/index.html
What do you think about adding a sentence or two saying that you
should not use version numbers in DESCRIPTION? This could even be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Christian Faulhammer wrote:
Petteri R�ty [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I did see anything in devmanual taking a stance on this issue:
http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/variables/index.html
What do you think about adding a sentence or two saying
Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote:
Perhaps we should just move DESCRIPTIONs to metadata. That would make it
impossible to use ${PV} and more importantly also remove some duplication.
I think that this is a great idea, for the reasons which you stated. I
certainly hope this will not be yet another
Petteri Räty schrieb:
Currently there are some ebuilds in the tree that use ${PV} in
description which leads to results like:
Description: Documentation (including API Javadocs) for
Java SDK version 1.6.0
I did see anything in devmanual taking a stance on this issue:
Marijn Schouten (hkBst) kirjoitti:
Christian Faulhammer wrote:
Petteri Rýty [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I did see anything in devmanual taking a stance on this issue:
http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/variables/index.html
What do you think about adding a sentence or two saying that you
Tiziano Müller kirjoitti:
Petteri Räty schrieb:
Currently there are some ebuilds in the tree that use ${PV} in
description which leads to results like:
Description: Documentation (including API Javadocs) for
Java SDK version 1.6.0
I did see anything in devmanual taking a stance
Tiziano Müller wrote:
As far as I understood it, having DESCRIPTION in the ebuild itself
(rather than in metadata) means that DESCRIPTION is allowed to change
between versions, whether automatically by using a version-dependent
variable or manually.
Well, from what I understand, DESCRIPTION
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:06:40 +0300
Petteri Räty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But is there anything that makes use of version specific DESCRIPTION
atoms?
Yep. Have a look at sys-devel/gcc for example. Some versions include
various extensions, and say so in DESCRIPTION.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:44:52 +0200
Marijn Schouten (hkBst) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps we should just move DESCRIPTIONs to metadata. That would make
it impossible to use ${PV} and more importantly also remove some
duplication.
Got to be careful here. In the past it's been stated that
Ciaran McCreesh kirjoitti:
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:06:40 +0300
Petteri Räty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But is there anything that makes use of version specific DESCRIPTION
atoms?
Yep. Have a look at sys-devel/gcc for example. Some versions include
various extensions, and say so in
Ciaran McCreesh kirjoitti:
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:44:52 +0200
Marijn Schouten (hkBst) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps we should just move DESCRIPTIONs to metadata. That would make
it impossible to use ${PV} and more importantly also remove some
duplication.
Got to be careful here. In the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Petteri Räty wrote:
Marijn Schouten (hkBst) kirjoitti:
Perhaps we should just move DESCRIPTIONs to metadata. That would make it
impossible to use ${PV} and more importantly also remove some duplication.
shortdescription
/shortdescription
On Tuesday, 24. July 2007 14:26, Petteri Räty wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh kirjoitti:
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:44:52 +0200
Marijn Schouten (hkBst) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps we should just move DESCRIPTIONs to metadata. That would
make it impossible to use ${PV} and more importantly also
Ciaran McCreesh schrieb:
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:44:52 +0200
Marijn Schouten (hkBst) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps we should just move DESCRIPTIONs to metadata. That would make
it impossible to use ${PV} and more importantly also remove some
duplication.
Got to be careful here. In the
Petteri Räty schrieb:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=186454
In regard to this it makes sense to add a check (but only a warning) to
repoman and document it in the devmanual.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:18:46 +0200
Tiziano Müller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh schrieb:
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:44:52 +0200
Marijn Schouten (hkBst) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps we should just move DESCRIPTIONs to metadata. That would
make it impossible to use ${PV} and more
Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote:
Christian Faulhammer wrote:
Petteri Rýty [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I did see anything in devmanual taking a stance on this issue:
http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/variables/index.html
What do you think about adding a sentence or two saying that you
should
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
The only specification-compliant yaml parser is written in C, has
only the bottom two layers of the stack and no usable external
bindings... Perhaps you mean something that's basically yaml except
with reserved string-start characters not handled correctly, in which
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:46:05 +0200
Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
The only specification-compliant yaml parser is written in C, has
only the bottom two layers of the stack and no usable external
bindings... Perhaps you mean something that's basically yaml
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Yaml looks nicer than XML on the surface, but unfortunately it's still a
pain in the ass to handle...
Basically because there aren't nicer libraries for languages different
than ruby python and perl... =/
lu
--
Luca Barbato
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:11:35 +0200
Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Yaml looks nicer than XML on the surface, but unfortunately it's
still a pain in the ass to handle...
Basically because there aren't nicer libraries for languages different
than ruby python
Ciaran McCreesh schrieb:
And there aren't specification-compliant Yaml libraries for Ruby,
Python or Perl. That's important. If you're using the thing that Syck
generates, you're not using Yaml.
Sorry for starting this off-topic discussion. I'd suggest that we first
concentrate on what we want
24 matches
Mail list logo
