QT doesn't work well when mixed versions of its core libraries are
installed. Usually an emerge -avDu world solves the problem, but some
users tend to avoid this.
For example, lets say you have parts of QT 4.4.2 on your system. QT
4.5.1 is available and a user decides to manually update qt-core,
Alex Alexander wrote:
QT doesn't work well when mixed versions of its core libraries are
installed. Usually an emerge -avDu world solves the problem, but some
users tend to avoid this.
For example, lets say you have parts of QT 4.4.2 on your system. QT
4.5.1 is available and a user
On Mon, 18 May 2009 06:59:36 +0200
Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
AFAICS, there _is_ an ambiguity.
There's no ambiguity. It means what we define it to mean.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, 18 May 2009 13:04:27 +0300
Alex Alexander alex.alexan...@gmail.com wrote:
Unfortunately we've got reports from paludis users stating that they
can't update QT from qting-edge anymore.
Paludis treats blocks as strong, the way Portage used to and the way
PMS defined them until we had to
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 18 May 2009 13:04:27 +0300
Alex Alexander alex.alexan...@gmail.com wrote:
Unfortunately we've got reports from paludis users stating that they
can't update QT from qting-edge anymore.
Paludis treats blocks as strong, the way Portage used to and the way
PMS
On Mon, 18 May 2009 17:47:52 +0300
Petteri Räty betelge...@gentoo.org wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 18 May 2009 13:04:27 +0300
Alex Alexander alex.alexan...@gmail.com wrote:
Unfortunately we've got reports from paludis users stating that
they can't update QT from qting-edge
Joe Peterson wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
3. Extend versioning rules in an EAPI - for example, addition of the
scm suffix - GLEP54 [1] or allowing more sensible version formats like
1-rc1, 1-alpha etc. to match upstream more closely.
Apart from GLEP54, I believe our versioning scheme works
On Mon, 18 May 2009 16:07:20 +0100
Steven J Long sl...@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk wrote:
I missed the clamour of developers complaining about this
oh-so-burdensome restriction that they've been dealing with for at
least 5 years.
Why do you think I wrote the awful hack that is versionator?
Anything
On Mon, 18 May 2009 16:16:46 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
Why do you think I wrote the awful hack that is versionator?
Why don't you explain why, historically, you put that in the tree? It
would help us now if you were to simply record your mistakes for
everybody
David Leverton wrote:
2009/5/17 Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org:
I think the way eapi-2 was introduced into the tree wasn't particularly
problematic.
I think there might be a misunderstanding here. Ciaran means functions
provided by the package manager that ebuilds can call during metadata
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 18 May 2009 16:07:20 +0100
Steven J Long sl...@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk wrote:
I missed the clamour of developers complaining about this
oh-so-burdensome restriction that they've been dealing with for at
least 5 years.
Why do you think I wrote the awful hack
On Mon, 18 May 2009 17:28:00 +0200
Jeroen Roovers j...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Mon, 18 May 2009 16:16:46 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
Why do you think I wrote the awful hack that is versionator?
Why don't you explain why, historically, you put that in the tree?
On Monday 18 May 2009, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
On Mon, 18 May 2009 16:16:46 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
Why do you think I wrote the awful hack that is versionator?
Why don't you explain why, historically, you put that in the tree? It
would help us now if you
On Mon, 18 May 2009 17:42:19 +0200
Robert Buchholz r...@gentoo.org wrote:
I'm not following. Why should it be discouraged?
I was happy with it until now.
Versionator is a lot better than what people were doing before I wrote
it. It's just nowhere near as good as what a package manager provided
2009/5/18 Steven J Long sl...@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk:
David Leverton wrote:
2009/5/17 Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org:
I think the way eapi-2 was introduced into the tree wasn't particularly
problematic.
I think there might be a misunderstanding here. Ciaran means functions
provided by the
From what I understand you are utilizing portages ability to
automagically resolve blockers when all blockers will be resolved within
the current command. Agree?? or is it the fact that you are doing
!x11-libs/qt-assistant-${PV}-r that is causing the paludis problem?
Yes, portage's
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 17:21, Ciaran McCreesh
ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
Not really. There's no particularly good mechanism for ensuring equal
versions of things where not everything has to be installed. The best
option I can think of is to have a meta package called, say, split-qt,
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 19:51, Ciaran McCreesh
ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
It wouldn't, although it would be fixed as soon as someone tried to
install a package with a Qt dep.
Dependencies the way they are now aren't really expressive enough to
handle what you're after -- split
On Mon, 18 May 2009 20:01:22 +0300
Alex Alexander alex.alexan...@gmail.com wrote:
is paludis expected to behave like portage in the near future
regarding these blocks?
Probably not. My issue with the way Portage does soft blocks is that
it's way too arbitrary, fuzzy and ill defined.
There were
On Mon, 18 May 2009 19:15:59 +0200
Maciej Mrozowski reave...@poczta.fm wrote:
Not sure who is 'we' there, but Portage team already made is useful.
Basic portage rule for soft-blocks behaviour is no longer referenced
(a'ka 'soft') blocked package can be uninstalled cleanly without user
On Monday 18 of May 2009 19:26:58 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 18 May 2009 19:15:59 +0200
Maciej Mrozowski reave...@poczta.fm wrote:
Not sure who is 'we' there, but Portage team already made is useful.
Basic portage rule for soft-blocks behaviour is no longer referenced
(a'ka 'soft')
On Mon, 18 May 2009 20:05:51 +0200
Maciej Mrozowski reave...@poczta.fm wrote:
That's not in the least bit well defined, and it's also extremely
dangerous.
Please elaborate on that.
With Portage's soft blocks, there's no guarantee that your blocks will
do anything at all. Soft blocks are
On Monday 18 May 2009 20:19:24 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 18 May 2009 20:05:51 +0200
Maciej Mrozowski reave...@poczta.fm wrote:
That's not in the least bit well defined, and it's also extremely
dangerous.
Please elaborate on that.
With Portage's soft blocks, there's no guarantee
On Mon, 18 May 2009 21:08:25 +0200
Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote:
In terms of the on-disk result it's invariant, the result is what
you'd expect. There are intermediate stages that are inconsistent /
unclean, but as these are known and temporary they are an
acceptable solution.
No,
On Monday 18 May 2009 21:20:10 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 18 May 2009 21:08:25 +0200
Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote:
In terms of the on-disk result it's invariant, the result is what
you'd expect. There are intermediate stages that are inconsistent /
unclean, but as these are
On Mon, 18 May 2009 22:47:30 +0200
Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote:
No, they're temporary except when things go wrong, at which point
there's no indication that they'll be fixed.
When things go wrong they go wrong. Indeed.
When things go wrong, they go wrong beyond the scope of the
26 matches
Mail list logo
