On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 09:53:29 +0900
Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 21 December 2005 01:57, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > > Reasoning on checking all system atoms is that other groups are
> > > just as likely to need the functionality as we are. Combining
>
On Wednesday 21 December 2005 01:57, Marius Mauch wrote:
> Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > Reasoning on checking all system atoms is that other groups are just as
> > likely to need the functionality as we are. Combining that with how
> > rarely versions are actually updated for system packages, it shouldn
Jason Stubbs wrote:
Reasoning on checking all system atoms is that other groups are just as likely
to need the functionality as we are. Combining that with how rarely versions
are actually updated for system packages, it shouldn't cause any more bother
to users than it needs to.
Well, that ap
On Tuesday 20 December 2005 23:15, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> On Tuesday 20 December 2005 01:49, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > Also not talking about implementation details yet, just after comments
> > about the general idea of forced portage updates.
>
> I gave it a go anyway... ;)
Also needed:
Index: port
On Tuesday 20 December 2005 01:49, Marius Mauch wrote:
> Also not talking about implementation details yet, just after comments
> about the general idea of forced portage updates.
I gave it a go anyway... ;)
# emerge -up kde-base/kde
Checking for mandatory system updates... Done.
The following
Jason Stubbs wrote:
> On Tuesday 20 December 2005 21:42, Francesco Riosa wrote:
>
>>> Whenever we want/need to make structural changes to the tree that are
>>> going to break backwards compability we have a serious problem
>>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Just throwing random thoughts here, but
>>
>> W
On Tuesday 20 December 2005 21:42, Francesco Riosa wrote:
> > Whenever we want/need to make structural changes to the tree that are
> > going to break backwards compability we have a serious problem
>
> [...]
>
> Just throwing random thoughts here, but
>
> Would a rescue-portage help on this ?
It'
> Whenever we want/need to make structural changes to the tree that are
> going to break backwards compability we have a serious problem
[...]
Just throwing random thoughts here, but
Would a rescue-portage help on this ?
What I'm meaning is a "binary" portage provided for each ARCH (that
insta
On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 05:24:06PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 17:49:02 +0100 Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | And just in case anybody wonders: this cannot be fixed with EAPI or
> | adding a portage dep on packages as those only take effect when the
> | ebuild
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 17:49:02 +0100 Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| And just in case anybody wonders: this cannot be fixed with EAPI or
| adding a portage dep on packages as those only take effect when the
| ebuild is already parsed while the mentioned problems occur much
| earlier.
Is it
On Mon, 2005-12-19 at 17:49 +0100, Marius Mauch wrote:
> Ok, the subject might be confusing, so let me explain this a bit:
>
> Whenever we want/need to make structural changes to the tree that are
> going to break backwards compability we have a serious problem (see
> GLEP 44 in case you don't kno
Ok, the subject might be confusing, so let me explain this a bit:
Whenever we want/need to make structural changes to the tree that are
going to break backwards compability we have a serious problem (see
GLEP 44 in case you don't know about it). To reduce the impact of that
problem I've got the id
12 matches
Mail list logo
