Jeroen Roovers [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 15:10:58 +0100
Thilo Bangert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the idea is really great
[...]
now this needs to be [...] made mandatory for all ebuilds.
Uh, what?
Why? If the idea is that great, then why does it need to be
On Nov 24, 2007 4:19 PM, Doug Goldstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jose Luis Rivero wrote:
I'm not asking for an extra overhead of 'bureaucracy' (write specs,
mailling @dev, send to the council, etc.) but a bit more of communication
would be appreciated:
All the above is completely
Piotr Jaroszyński [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Current html version available here:
http://dev.gentoo.org/~peper/glep-0054.html
Until reading the abstract, I thought this was Scheme related.
I'd suggest -vc (version controlled) or -vcs instead.
(...not that it matters much, of course.)
--
Hello,
Attaching the GLEP source.
Current html version available here:
http://dev.gentoo.org/~peper/glep-0054.html
--
Best Regards,
Piotr Jaroszyński
GLEP: 54
Title: scm package version suffix
Version: $Revision: $
Last-Modified: $Date: $
Author: Piotr Jaroszyński [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Status:
On Sunday 09 of December 2007 17:18:08 Josh Sled wrote:
Piotr Jaroszyński [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Current html version available here:
http://dev.gentoo.org/~peper/glep-0054.html
Until reading the abstract, I thought this was Scheme related.
I'd suggest -vc (version controlled) or -vcs
Portage versions prior to 2.1.2.12 (included in 2007.0) doesn't handle
arbitrary
version suffixes
doesn't -- don't
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On Sunday 09 of December 2007 18:52:22 Petteri Räty wrote:
Portage versions prior to 2.1.2.12 (included in 2007.0) doesn't handle
arbitrary
version suffixes
doesn't -- don't
thanks, fixed.
--
Best Regards,
Piotr Jaroszyński
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Specification
=
``scm`` is a special suffix. It can be used on its own, but also in any other
valid version spec, just before the place where revision would go. And just
like
revision it can be used only once in a version spec, e.g.:
* ``cat/pkg-1.0_alpha0-scm``
*
� wrote:
Specification
=
``scm`` is a special suffix. It can be used on its own, but also in any other
valid version spec, just before the place where revision would go. And just
like
revision it can be used only once in a version spec, e.g.:
* ``cat/pkg-1.0_alpha0-scm``
The attached list notes all of the packages that were added or removed
from the tree, for the week ending 2007-12-09 23h59 UTC.
Removals:
games-arcade/ultrastar-songs2007-12-03 21:20:49 tupone
dev-java/sun-jaf-bin2007-12-05 01:51:12
Attached are the packages marked for removal this week.
--
looks like christmas at fifty-five degrees
this latitude weakens my knees
EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662 (0xF9A40662)
www-apps/viewcvs
On 18:57 Sun 09 Dec , Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 19:45:27 +0100
Jan Kundrát [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is the point of using version information along the scm suffix?
Branches.
How would I handle branches that aren't numbers but are instead strings,
which seems to
On 11:08 Sat 08 Dec , Matteo Azzali (mattepiu) wrote:
1.1 media-tv/xmltv/xmltv-0.5.50.ebuild
file :
http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/media-tv/xmltv/xmltv-0.5.50.ebuild?rev=1.1view=markup
plain:
On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 20:31:46 -0800
Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 18:57 Sun 09 Dec , Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 19:45:27 +0100
Jan Kundrát [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is the point of using version information along the scm
suffix?
Branches.
How
On Dec 10, 2007 12:48 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Feature as opposed to release branches would still have to be separate
packages, especially if you need to depend upon a particular feature.
I don't understand how having to depend on a particular feature causes
one to need a
15 matches
Mail list logo
