Quoting Mike Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Thu, 17 May 2007 00:37:23 +0200
Thilo Bangert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> IMHO app-vim/ant should really be app-vim/vim-ant or something other
> than just ant.
or app-vim/sudo-syntax and app-vim/ant-syntax as there already are a
number of ebui
On Thu, 17 May 2007 00:37:23 +0200
Thilo Bangert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > It isn't different. That's the problem. If you have two packages
> > > with the same name, you have the same problem.
> >
> > On that note I would hope the vim/vi peeps would rename.
> > app-vim/ant
>
> and app-vi
While I always was for uniq package names, tree-wide, renaming doesn't solve
anything. Gentoo's binary packages are fundamentally broken. You can't have
two binary packages of the same ebuild differing e.g. in use flags,
architecture, toolchain, etc. pp. either.
Carsten
signature.asc
Descrip
Thilo Bangert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> yazdı:
> > > It isn't different. That's the problem. If you have two packages
> > > with the same name, you have the same problem.
> >
> > On that note I would hope the vim/vi peeps would rename.
> > app-vim/ant
>
> and app-vim/sudo
>
which is soon to be dead
Thilo Bangert napsal(a):
>>> It isn't different. That's the problem. If you have two packages
>>> with the same name, you have the same problem.
>> On that note I would hope the vim/vi peeps would rename.
>> app-vim/ant
>
> and app-vim/sudo
and app-xemacs/emerge, g
--
jakub
signature.
> > It isn't different. That's the problem. If you have two packages
> > with the same name, you have the same problem.
>
> On that note I would hope the vim/vi peeps would rename.
> app-vim/ant
and app-vim/sudo
> IMHO app-vim/ant should really be app-vim/vim-ant or something other
> than just
Steve Long napsal(a):
> welp's been away ;)
Oh well, the dreaded *buntu maintenance eats time, you know... *g*
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E
Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2
Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> the amd64 team is unresponsive on even trivial stabilisation
> request form the KDE team as well, lately.
>
welp's been away ;)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
> On Wed, 16 May 2007, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> You end up with this:
> /usr/portage/packages/All/emacs-21.4-r12
> /usr/portage/packages/All/emacs-21
> When you go to merge your virtual, it will always merge the package,
> even if you're *trying* to merge an emacs alternative.
This is no l
On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 13:07 -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 19:52 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >
> > New-style virtuals are just *packages*, or did I get this completely
> > wrong? So how is this situation different from two packages with the
> > same name, but in different
On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 19:52 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Wed, 16 May 2007, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
>
> >> virtual/emacs
>
> > You made a new-style virtual with the same name as a package? This
> > can cause problems with binary package usage, as you will now end up
> > with two package
> On Wed, 16 May 2007, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
>> virtual/emacs
> You made a new-style virtual with the same name as a package? This
> can cause problems with binary package usage, as you will now end up
> with two packages with the same "name" but different versions.
There are several other
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> No. It would have been ideal if we would have done it with the release.
Exactly my point. Let's do it for the next release if neither Gnome nor
KDE folks can predict our/their next releases.
Cheers,
Rémi
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
>> No. It would have been ideal if we would have done it with the release.
>> Now, it means people *will* need to use revdep-rebuild as soon as they
>> install their shiny new system if they use binary packages. People
>> coming from stage3 would be fine, of course.
>>
>
I would have been happy
Chris Gianelloni kirjoitti:
>
> No. It would have been ideal if we would have done it with the release.
> Now, it means people *will* need to use revdep-rebuild as soon as they
> install their shiny new system if they use binary packages. People
> coming from stage3 would be fine, of course.
>
On Tue, 2007-05-15 at 20:08 +0200, Rémi Cardona wrote:
> Duncan wrote:
> > It's probably a bit late now (unless we want to wait yet another few
> > months), but tying this to a profile upgrade might have been a more
> > practical solution. 2007.0, or now 2007.1. Old profiles would stick
> > wi
On Tue, 2007-05-15 at 15:25 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Tue, 15 May 2007, Jakub Moc wrote:
>
> >> virtual/emacs
> >> virtual/flim
>
> > Oh, and naming the new-style virtuals the same as the real thing
> > kills binpkgs. :/
>
> Sorry, I don't get your point here.
>
> The "real thing"
On Tue, 2007-05-15 at 12:44 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> The Emacs team has converted the following virtual packages:
>
>virtual/emacs
You made a new-style virtual with the same name as a package? This can
cause problems with binary package usage, as you will now end up with
two packages w
Christian, Raúl - you guys rock!
Carsten
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Carsten Lohrke wrote:
>
> If we want to take this to measure, it' a bigger problem for KDE users
> (unless
> built with --as-needed). The list of packages is unfortunately
> quite "impressive". What was your plan wrt. stabilisation of Gnome? I can
> look at the remaining issues this evening, s
On Tuesday, May 15, 2007 05:29:44 PM Christian Faulhammer wrote:
> Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > but the amd64 team is unresponsive on even trivial stabilisation
> > request form the KDE team as well, lately.
> You will get them tomorrow...promised. :) Too many bugs, not enough
> devs..
On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 08:36:27AM +0100, Roy Marples wrote:
> On Wed, 16 May 2007 00:25:22 -0700
> Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 09:10:22AM -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > >
> > > We also have *tons* of other commercial software in the tree.
> >
> > Exactly
On Wed, 16 May 2007 00:25:22 -0700
Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 09:10:22AM -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> >
> > We also have *tons* of other commercial software in the tree.
>
> Exactly, I don't understand the problem here.
>
> /me votes to remove vmware
>
> Y
On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 09:10:22AM -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
>
> We also have *tons* of other commercial software in the tree.
Exactly, I don't understand the problem here.
/me votes to remove vmware
Yeah, like that will ever happen :)
thanks,
greg k-h
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
24 matches
Mail list logo
