On 14:20 Fri 30 Nov , Matsuu Takuto (matsuu) wrote:
> 1.1 app-text/ptex/ptex-3.1.10_p20071122.ebuild
>
> file :
> http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/app-text/ptex/ptex-3.1.10_p20071122.ebuild?rev=1.1&view=markup
> plain:
> http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/ge
On 23:15 Thu 29 Nov , Markus Ullmann (jokey) wrote:
> 1.1 app-doc/php-docs/php-docs-20071125.ebuild
>
> file :
> http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/app-doc/php-docs/php-docs-20071125.ebuild?rev=1.1&view=markup
> plain:
> http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gent
> Now that's something that sound reasonable. Why limit the period and
> don't provide it forever?
To comment slightly here:
Forever and Unlimited are always just dirty lies. Don't make promises
you can't keep.
To be fair even some of Robin's comments are odd, mentioning
'permanent urls'. Sure
On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 10:11:31AM +0100, Jan Kundr?t wrote:
> > - See also RFC1738: 'Within the and components, "/",
> > ";", "?" are reserved.'
> My copy of RFC1738 says (end of section 2.2):
...
> I wasn't able to find your quote in that file.
My quote was from the first sentence of RFC1738,
"Santiago M. Mola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted
below, on Thu, 29 Nov 2007 20:29:31 +0100:
> I don't know what kind of changes meant Donnie (I hope he clarify that)
> but a couple of examples came to my mind when I read his proposal: bugs
> #182253 and #181897.
Good ex
Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED],
excerpted below, on Fri, 30 Nov 2007 10:42:03 +:
> Duncan wrote:
>> It's kinda hard to discuss such a proposal without knowing where it is
>> going to be applied
> I took it to mean anything which changes something already documented
Duncan wrote:
> "Marijn Schouten (hkBst)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Wed, 28 Nov 2007
> 12:40:58 +0100:
>
>> Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>>> How the recent changes happened to allow USE flag descriptions in
>>> metadata.xml (which I'm not taking any position on
Christian Faulhammer wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> Is this something worth pinching for a future EAPI? If we go with the
>> postfix [] form for ranged deps, it'd translate into:
>> LICENSE="=GPL-2" (or equivalently, LICENSE="GPL[=2]")
>> LICENSE="|| ( GPL[>=2] BSD )" (
Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> - Using the ';' as an argument separator in the old side is not a valid
> query argument separator, and there are URLs out there that have added
> further arguments using it, complicating parsing.
What is source of your definition of "valid query argument separator"?
