Howdy all,
I just bumped into something I feel is a Portage and PMS bug. Since I
believe in concrete use cases, I'll just go with that.
Currently in the tree we have sys-fs/ntfs3g. However the proper upstream
name and name referenced in every single doc in the world is ntfs-3g.
I tried to rename
Doug Goldstein wrote:
Howdy all,
I just bumped into something I feel is a Portage and PMS bug. Since I
believe in concrete use cases, I'll just go with that.
Currently in the tree we have sys-fs/ntfs3g. However the proper upstream
name and name referenced in every single doc in the world is
Doug Goldstein wrote:
Currently in the tree we have sys-fs/ntfs3g. However the proper upstream
name and name referenced in every single doc in the world is ntfs-3g.
I tried to rename the package however, Portage does not let me since it
is invalid naming. marienz and genone informed me it's
On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 12:32:40 -0400
Daniel Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Doug Goldstein wrote:
Currently in the tree we have sys-fs/ntfs3g. However the proper
upstream name and name referenced in every single doc in the world
is ntfs-3g. I tried to rename the package however, Portage does
maillog: 07/06/2007-19:42:45(+0200): Marius Mauch types
On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 12:32:40 -0400
Daniel Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Doug Goldstein wrote:
Currently in the tree we have sys-fs/ntfs3g. However the proper
upstream name and name referenced in every single doc in the world
Marius Mauch wrote:
On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 12:32:40 -0400
Daniel Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Doug Goldstein wrote:
Currently in the tree we have sys-fs/ntfs3g. However the proper
upstream name and name referenced in every single doc in the world
is ntfs-3g. I tried to rename the
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 02:04:08PM -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote:
Thing is: if you see sys-fs/ntfs-3g, is that an atom or a CPV? You
don't know unless you actually check the tree.
I thought that was the whole point of =. That identifies CPV instead of
an atom.
If you look the DEPEND/RDEPEND
On Fri, 8 Jun 2007 02:57:28 +0900
Georgi Georgiev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
maillog: 07/06/2007-19:42:45(+0200): Marius Mauch types
Thing is: if you see sys-fs/ntfs-3g, is that an atom or a CPV? You
don't know unless you actually check the tree.
Isn't sys-fs/ntfs-3g the atom and
Robin H. Johnson wrote:
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 02:04:08PM -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote:
Thing is: if you see sys-fs/ntfs-3g, is that an atom or a CPV? You
don't know unless you actually check the tree.
I thought that was the whole point of =. That identifies CPV instead of
an
On Donnerstag, 7. Juni 2007, Doug Goldstein wrote:
That's exactly what I'm saying. CPV (Category/Package/Version) requires
=, =, , = to begin it.
So you'd like to change every foo/bar occurrence (and that's the common case)
to =foo/bar-0 !? Completely out of line, imho. I don't understand what
Carsten Lohrke wrote:
On Donnerstag, 7. Juni 2007, Doug Goldstein wrote:
That's exactly what I'm saying. CPV (Category/Package/Version) requires
=, =, , = to begin it.
So you'd like to change every foo/bar occurrence (and that's the common case)
to =foo/bar-0 !? Completely out of
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 19:42:45 +0200
Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thing is: if you see sys-fs/ntfs-3g, is that an atom or a CPV? You
don't know unless you actually check the tree.
Is there any place in the tree where a dep atom and a CPV are both
accepted? Should there be?
--
[EMAIL
Carsten Lohrke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Donnerstag, 7. Juni 2007, Doug Goldstein wrote:
That's exactly what I'm saying. CPV (Category/Package/Version) requires
=, =, , = to begin it.
So you'd like to change every foo/bar occurrence (and that's the common case)
to =foo/bar-0 !?
On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 15:04:17 -0400
Doug Goldstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's exactly what I'm saying. CPV (Category/Package/Version)
requires =, =, , = to begin it.
Nope. Something that starts with an operator is a versioned atom. A CPV
is used in other places when a specific version is
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 11:28:26 -0700
Robin H. Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
4. If the first character was a !, then remember that, strip the !
from S, and repeat from 2.
5. If you reach this point, you have something that is not valid.
Sorry, but I completely fail to understand what that's
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 09:31:44PM +0100, Stephen Bennett wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 19:42:45 +0200
Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thing is: if you see sys-fs/ntfs-3g, is that an atom or a CPV? You
don't know unless you actually check the tree.
Is there any place in the tree where
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 22:33:21 +0200
Harald van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
An ebuild's PROVIDE list.
Nnnnope. Not legal.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 22:33:21 +0200
Harald van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
An ebuild's PROVIDE list.
According to PMS at least, PROVIDE only allows category/package, with
no versioning.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
On Donnerstag, 7. Juni 2007, Doug Goldstein wrote:
Carsten, no offense but I think you totally misunderstood the scope of
what I was trying to convey
Yeah, sorry, should have had read your initial email carefully. Taking
anything before the last - as version information is indeed a Portage
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 09:40:20PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 22:33:21 +0200
Harald van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
An ebuild's PROVIDE list.
Nnnnope. Not legal.
The question was Is there any place in the tree where a dep atom and a
CPV are both accepted? Look at the
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 22:52:39 +0200
Harald van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 09:40:20PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 22:33:21 +0200
Harald van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
An ebuild's PROVIDE list.
Nnnnope. Not legal.
The question was Is
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 23:31:38 +0200
Harald van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the question is whether it's accepted, what matters is whether it's
accepted. If you're interested in legality, ask whether it should be
accepted, not whether it is. spb did that in the same message, and I
responded
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 22:38:49 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If Portage currently happens to, say, disable sandbox if an ebuild
sets GIVE_ME_A_COOKIE=yes globally, it does not mean that ebuilds
may rely upon this behaviour, nor does it mean that Portage cannot
change in such a
23 matches
Mail list logo
