On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 15:44:04 +1200
Kent Fredric kentfred...@gmail.com wrote:
Firstly, we already have a ^^( ) syntax for REQUIRED_USE , one of,
but not more than one of.
A user has a and b installed. c depends upon ^^ ( a b ). The user tries
to install c. What happens?
--
Ciaran McCreesh
El lun, 02-07-2012 a las 13:45 -0700, Zac Medico escribió:
On 07/02/2012 01:36 PM, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
Il 02/07/2012 22:01, Zac Medico ha scritto:
On 07/02/2012 12:48 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
El lun, 28-05-2012 a las 14:34 -0700, Zac Medico escribió:
Hi,
In case you aren't familiar
On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 13:45:26 -0700
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 07/02/2012 01:36 PM, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
Il 02/07/2012 22:01, Zac Medico ha scritto:
On 07/02/2012 12:48 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
El lun, 28-05-2012 a las 14:34 -0700, Zac Medico escribió:
Hi,
In case you
Il 02/07/2012 22:45, Zac Medico ha scritto:
On 07/02/2012 01:36 PM, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
Il 02/07/2012 22:01, Zac Medico ha scritto:
On 07/02/2012 12:48 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
El lun, 28-05-2012 a las 14:34 -0700, Zac Medico escribió:
Hi,
In case you aren't familiar with
On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 15:44:04 +1200
Kent Fredric kentfred...@gmail.com wrote:
Firstly, we already have a ^^( ) syntax for REQUIRED_USE , one of,
but not more than one of.
However, to my knowledge, we don't have such for ebuilds.
Sure, there are ways of implementing this in ebuilds without
On 3 July 2012 19:08, Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 15:44:04 +1200
Kent Fredric kentfred...@gmail.com wrote:
Firstly, we already have a ^^( ) syntax for REQUIRED_USE , one of,
but not more than one of.
A user has a and b installed. c depends upon
On 3 July 2012 20:24, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
--depclean?
eix Module-Metadata
[I] perl-core/Module-Metadata
Available versions: ~1.0.3 ~1.0.4 ~1.0.5 1.0.6 ~1.0.9---
not unmasked by --autounmask
Installed versions: 1.0.6(15:59:00 06/26/12)
Homepage:
Don't need or care about this anymore, feel free to pick up if you use it
One open bug, http://bugs.gentoo.org/403883
I guess something like this might work in pkg_postinst of the portage
ebuild:
find $DISTDIR -maxdepth 1 -type d -uid 0 | xargs chown -R
portage:portage
I would only trigger something like this once, when upgrading from a
version that doesn't have userpriv enabled by default.
If you
I guess something like this might work in pkg_postinst of the portage
ebuild:
find $DISTDIR -maxdepth 1 -type d -uid 0 | xargs chown -R
portage:portage
I would only trigger something like this once, when upgrading from a
version that doesn't have userpriv enabled by default.
On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 21:05:46 +1200
Kent Fredric kentfred...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 July 2012 20:24, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
--depclean?
eix Module-Metadata
[I] perl-core/Module-Metadata
Available versions: ~1.0.3 ~1.0.4 ~1.0.5 1.0.6 ~1.0.9---
not unmasked by
On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 15:02:28 -0400
Mike Gilbert flop...@gentoo.org wrote:
That is exactly what Doug (cardoe) proposed, and he is working on the
docs for that.
Ah yes, it's been a long-winded thread. :)
jer
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 03/07/12 05:05 AM, Kent Fredric wrote:
On 3 July 2012 20:24, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
--depclean?
eix Module-Metadata [I] perl-core/Module-Metadata Available
versions: ~1.0.3 ~1.0.4 ~1.0.5 1.0.6 ~1.0.9--- not unmasked
On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 03:05:46PM +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
Don't need or care about this anymore, feel free to pick up if you use it
One open bug, http://bugs.gentoo.org/403883
Is this bug still valid if there's 0.3.0 in portage and 0.2.4 is gone?
Piotr Szymaniak.
--
W celi byla
# Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org (3 Jul 2012)
# Dead upstream. Doesn't compile with current kernels.
# Removal in 30 days.
app-laptop/lenovo-sl-laptop
--
Cheers,
Ben | yngwin
Gentoo developer
Gentoo Qt project lead, Gentoo Wiki admin
On 4 July 2012 02:16, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
I have thought of scrapping the virtuals entirely and handling it so
that things depend on perl-core/* instead, and perl-core can just
dynamically decide at install time whether or not it needs to no-op (
and sometimes perl-core/*
On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 20:24:43 +1200
Kent Fredric kentfred...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 July 2012 19:08, Ciaran McCreesh
ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 15:44:04 +1200
Kent Fredric kentfred...@gmail.com wrote:
Firstly, we already have a ^^( ) syntax for REQUIRED_USE ,
On 4 July 2012 02:16, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
a) || ( a b ) should be || ( b a ), to actually state what perl does,
I don't really see how that would help much, if anything, I get the
impression that would
1) needlessly install b even when it could be satisfied by a instead
( ie:
On 4 July 2012 05:56, Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
But whether or not a and b can be installed together sounds an awful
lot like a property of a and b, not of c.
Its just when C is really something abstract, ( a virtual ) provided
by both possibly a b, and b doesn't
On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 05:49:08 +1200
Kent Fredric kentfred...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 July 2012 02:16, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
I have thought of scrapping the virtuals entirely and handling it
so that things depend on perl-core/* instead, and perl-core can
just dynamically decide
On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 14:09:26 -0400
Richard Yao r...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 07/02/2012 02:02 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Monday 02 July 2012 13:37:53 Richard Yao wrote:
On 07/02/2012 10:54 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
hu? yes, as already pointed out, uname is not reliable when
On 3 July 2012 20:24, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
--depclean?
eix Module-Metadata
[I] perl-core/Module-Metadata
Available versions: ~1.0.3 ~1.0.4 ~1.0.5 1.0.6 ~1.0.9---
not unmasked by --autounmask
Installed versions: 1.0.6(15:59:00 06/26/12)
Homepage:
On 4 July 2012 02:16, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
I have thought of scrapping the virtuals entirely and handling it so
that things depend on perl-core/* instead, and perl-core can just
dynamically decide at install time whether or not it needs to no-op (
and sometimes perl-core/*
On 4 July 2012 02:16, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
a) || ( a b ) should be || ( b a ), to actually state what perl does,
I don't really see how that would help much, if anything, I get the
impression that would
1) needlessly install b even when it could be satisfied by a instead
( ie:
24 matches
Mail list logo
