Revised to use a separate variable for the name of the flag instead of
reading IUSE, as suggested by Ciaran McCreesh. As a result of this
change, vala.eclass now defaults to assuming that vala support is
optional (which is the case in an overwhelming majority of ebuilds that
would want to use this
El jue, 20-09-2012 a las 02:14 -0400, Alexandre Rostovtsev escribió:
Revised to use a separate variable for the name of the flag instead of
reading IUSE, as suggested by Ciaran McCreesh. As a result of this
change, vala.eclass now defaults to assuming that vala support is
optional (which is
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 08:43:11 +0200
Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
El jue, 20-09-2012 a las 02:14 -0400, Alexandre Rostovtsev escribió:
Revised to use a separate variable for the name of the flag instead
of reading IUSE, as suggested by Ciaran McCreesh. As a result of
this change,
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 08:43:11 +0200
Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
El jue, 20-09-2012 a las 02:14 -0400, Alexandre Rostovtsev escribió:
Revised to use a separate variable for the name of the flag instead
of reading IUSE, as suggested by Ciaran McCreesh. As a result of
this change,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 20/09/12 03:41 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 08:43:11 +0200 Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org
wrote:
El jue, 20-09-2012 a las 02:14 -0400, Alexandre Rostovtsev
escribió:
Revised to use a separate variable for the name of the flag
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 09:13:40 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
PMS may not need to be fixed, just the spec
PMS is the spec, and it doesn't need fixing, since it accurately
reflects the situation we're dealing with.
- --
Ciaran McCreesh
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 20/09/12 09:52 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 09:13:40 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius
a...@gentoo.org wrote:
PMS may not need to be fixed, just the spec
PMS is the spec, and it doesn't need fixing, since it accurately
reflects the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 10:14:32 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
And, for support to be official for ebuilds or eclasses to query IUSE
(or other globals) within phase functions, then the 'spec' (PMS) is
probably all that needs to be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 20/09/12 10:26 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 10:14:32 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius
a...@gentoo.org wrote:
And, for support to be official for ebuilds or eclasses to query
IUSE (or other globals) within phase functions, then the
Today, the Gentoo Council has approved the specification for EAPI 5
in a vote by e-mail. You can get the text via app-doc/pms (as soon as
a new ebuild hits the mirrors) or from the git repository. The gitweb
for the PMS can be found here:
http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/pms.git
For
I'm working on some EAPI extensions with the goal of making Portage
more powerful for cross-compilation. See
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=317337
Currently, it's come down to the following:
- A new dependency type HDEPEND for packages which must be installed
in / at build time. With
El jue, 20-09-2012 a las 03:33 -0400, Alexandre Rostovtsev escribió:
On Thu, 2012-09-20 at 08:43 +0200, Pacho Ramos wrote:
El jue, 20-09-2012 a las 02:14 -0400, Alexandre Rostovtsev escribió:
Revised to use a separate variable for the name of the flag instead of
reading IUSE, as suggested
El jue, 20-09-2012 a las 09:13 -0400, Ian Stakenvicius escribió:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 20/09/12 03:41 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 08:43:11 +0200 Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org
wrote:
El jue, 20-09-2012 a las 02:14 -0400, Alexandre Rostovtsev
El jue, 20-09-2012 a las 14:52 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 09:13:40 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
PMS may not need to be fixed, just the spec
PMS is the spec, and it doesn't need fixing, since it
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 19:52:11 +0200
Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
The problem is that I suspect that, maybe, this behavior was present
and supported even in eapi0
It wasn't.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 19:54:43 +0200
Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
That isn't necessary what could occur if the behavior changes
unexpectedly: as current behavior is already being assumed in
eclasses/ebuilds, portage couldn't change it without, before, porting
ebuilds/eclasses to use that
El jue, 20-09-2012 a las 10:14 -0400, Ian Stakenvicius escribió:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 20/09/12 09:52 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 09:13:40 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius
a...@gentoo.org wrote:
PMS may not need to be fixed, just the spec
PMS
El jue, 20-09-2012 a las 09:10 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 08:43:11 +0200
Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
El jue, 20-09-2012 a las 02:14 -0400, Alexandre Rostovtsev escribió:
Revised to use a separate variable for the name of the flag instead
of reading IUSE,
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
El jue, 20-09-2012 a las 10:14 -0400, Ian Stakenvicius escribió:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 20/09/12 09:52 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 09:13:40 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius
El jue, 20-09-2012 a las 18:55 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 19:54:43 +0200
Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
That isn't necessary what could occur if the behavior changes
unexpectedly: as current behavior is already being assumed in
eclasses/ebuilds, portage
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 20:02:47 +0200
Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
We had this discussion when the function was introduced. It's
supposed to be used for cosmetic things only.
What are cosmetics things? Also, what do you mean by It's
supposed? Who should decide what is supposed and what
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 20:13:00 +0200
Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
El jue, 20-09-2012 a las 18:55 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 19:54:43 +0200
Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
That isn't necessary what could occur if the behavior changes
unexpectedly: as
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 20/09/12 02:12 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org
wrote:
El jue, 20-09-2012 a las 10:14 -0400, Ian Stakenvicius escribió:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256
On 20/09/12 09:52
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 14:23:51 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
I'm biased, so to me just auditing what portage does would be good
enough. :D
You also need to audit what Portage did since EAPI 0 was introduced.
- --
Ciaran McCreesh
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
El jue, 20-09-2012 a las 18:55 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 19:54:43 +0200
Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
That isn't necessary what could occur if the behavior changes
unexpectedly: as current
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 20/09/12 02:24 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 14:23:51 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius
a...@gentoo.org wrote:
I'm biased, so to me just auditing what portage does would be
good enough. :D
You also need to audit what Portage did
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 15:22:43 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 20/09/12 02:24 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 14:23:51 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius
a...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 20/09/12 03:31 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 15:22:43 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius
a...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 20/09/12 02:24
PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 14:23:51
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 20/09/12 03:31 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
I don't expect we would be modifying older EAPIs , any usage of IUSE
etc within phase functions for those EAPIs would remain undefined imo;
the audit is just to determine what portage (optionally other
Pacho Ramos posted on Thu, 20 Sep 2012 20:02:47 +0200 as excerpted:
El jue, 20-09-2012 a las 09:10 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 08:43:11 +0200 Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org
wrote:
El jue, 20-09-2012 a las 02:14 -0400, Alexandre Rostovtsev escribió:
Revised to use a
30 matches
Mail list logo
