On the EAPI subject Brian just brought back, I had this idea that we
could use the same approch XML took with HTML.
The ebuild could define which EAPI to use, but instead beiing a version,
the EAPI would be an ebuild API definition. The equivalent to the XML's
dtd. The ebuild could point to a dire
On Tue, 2005-08-23 at 12:27 -0500, Brian Harring wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 12:25:03PM -0400, Kristian Benoit wrote:
> > On Mon, 2005-08-22 at 15:39 -0500, Brian Harring wrote:
> > > That and help would always be welcome :P
> >
> > Then where do I find the cod
On Mon, 2005-08-22 at 21:41 +0100, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 13:49:14 -0400
> Kristian Benoit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I do agree with that, portage probably need a rewrite/better
> > modularization anyway. There is/was a project called porta
On Mon, 2005-08-22 at 15:39 -0500, Brian Harring wrote:
> That and help would always be welcome :P
Then where do I find the code (I'm an official dev yet, so I only have
access to what's in the mirrors and the patchs on mailing lists)
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Mon, 2005-08-22 at 16:38 +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
> Anyway, I hope you realize that your project doesn't only involve
> hacking on portage, but rewriting almost all of it for the client part.
> Actually I'd rather suggest you start from scratch
I do agree with that, portage probably need a r
On Fri, 2005-07-15 at 20:13 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> By the way, you seemed to attach a unified diff between your modified
> portage and an empty directory. Please don't do the same for busybox.
> Sending a 1.4MB patch to a public mailing list is not very nice -
> especially not in one go.
I'm
Actually, when executing pkg_config with "ebuild some/ebuild.ebuild
config", the stdin/stdout are broken cause we are not writing to a
terminal.
I fixed it with this patch:
diff -uNpr portage-2.0.51.19/pym/portage.py
portage-2.0.51.19-config/pym/portage.py
--- portage-2.0.51.19/pym/portage.py
On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 12:01 -0400, Michael Cummings wrote:
> Not sure of the mechanics on how
> this is done for the portage emerge process, but even stopping the
> emerge process for those packages that *must* have a preconfig done
> would help (are there any though? I can think of one maybe, but
On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 21:37 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> On Thursday 14 July 2005 20:58, Ned Ludd wrote:
> > echo "being that no portage dev in his/her right mind would ever"
> > echo "allow interactive code in an ebuild we use bashrc tricks"
>
> Actually, I promote interactive code in
On Wed, 2005-07-13 at 16:49 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> BTW, it's not in good form to post to multiple lists where only
> subscribers can respond.
I appologise.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 08:43 +0200, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 01:13 -0400, Kristian Benoit wrote:
> > What I want is "emerge busybox uclibc vanilla-sources nano". Should
> > unpack only the 3 first packages, show me busybox menuconfig, uclibc
> >
On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 07:58 -0400, Ned Ludd wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 01:13 -0400, Kristian Benoit wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-07-13 at 20:02 -0400, Ned Ludd wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2005-07-13 at 18:44 -0400, Kristian Benoit wrote:
> > > > I'm trying to add a ne
On Wed, 2005-07-13 at 20:02 -0400, Ned Ludd wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-07-13 at 18:44 -0400, Kristian Benoit wrote:
> > I'm trying to add a new command to ebuild (preconfig) for packages like
> > busybox that has to be configured prior to compile and that would be a
> > c
I'm trying to add a new command to ebuild (preconfig) for packages like
busybox that has to be configured prior to compile and that would be a
cannot really use USE as it probably have undreads of USE that does not
yet exist.
That new command would be called between src_unpack and src_compile and
14 matches
Mail list logo
