В Вск, 13/07/2008 в 23:52 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh пишет:
Which part of the 'Problem' section in the GLEP didn't you understand?
Do you seriously consider not being able to add or change global scope
functions in future EAPIs to be a non-issue, or were you ignoring those
two bullet points?
I've
On 2008-07-20 17:38, Peter Volkov uttered these thoughts:
В Вск, 13/07/2008 в 23:52 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh пишет:
Which part of the 'Problem' section in the GLEP didn't you understand?
Do you seriously consider not being able to add or change global scope
functions in future EAPIs to be a
Ciaran McCreesh kirjoitti:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 16:16:23 -0700
Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As far as could be determined by the members at the meeting there no
compelling examples in Gentoo who to change or add global scope
functions in future EAPIs. As such those problems as stated
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 18:58:01 +0300
Petteri Räty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes I can think a lot of features like this that would be of great
use in the main tree but as long as Portage is the only official and
stable package manager and doesn't support the things you listed, the
GLEP is not of
Ciaran McCreesh kirjoitti:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 18:58:01 +0300
Petteri Räty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes I can think a lot of features like this that would be of great
use in the main tree but as long as Portage is the only official and
stable package manager and doesn't support the things you
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 19:16:42 +0300
Petteri Räty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So you're saying the GLEP's of no use until Portage supports them,
but Portage can't support them until you say yes to the GLEP...
I am saying that it makes sense to approve both at the same time or
have other
Petteri Räty wrote:
I am saying that it makes sense to approve both at the same time or have
other official package managers approved before accepting the GLEP.
In addition, I'd want to see why the particular approach suggested in this
GELP is the only way (as some seem to claim). I have yet
Petteri Räty wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh kirjoitti:
So you're saying the GLEP's of no use until Portage supports them, but
Portage can't support them until you say yes to the GLEP...
I am saying that it makes sense to approve both at the same time or have
other official package managers approved
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 13:58:36 -0400
Richard Freeman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would it be more constructive to create a list of new
features/capabilities that depend on this GLEP. For each I'd define:
1. The feature/unmet need.
2. Why it can't be done or can only be done poorly without the
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 5:32 AM, Jeroen Roovers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What GLEP 55 fails to address right now is the very development process
it is seemingly supposed to alleviate. It addresses the issue of EAPI
implementation from the viewpoint of the package manager's developer,
but it
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 05:32:58 +0200
Jeroen Roovers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm sorry to say this, but I actually do take offence at most things
you write.
Perhaps you should consider what that indicates about yourself, rather
than about me.
As you know fine well, implementing what clearly
On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 00:11:18 -0700
Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Betelgeuse@ dberkholz: with GLEP 55 EAPI X can add the support for
scm
Betelgeuse@ dberkholz: and older Portage versions work just fine
I thought we established that EAPI (no matter how it's defined) only
controls
On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 00:11:18 -0700
Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
GLEP 55: On hold pending a concrete requirement for it. GLEP 54 may
be, but that's unclear until it's been revised.
Which part of the 'Problem' section in the GLEP didn't you understand?
Do you seriously consider not
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 3:52 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 00:11:18 -0700
Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
GLEP 55: On hold pending a concrete requirement for it. GLEP 54 may
be, but that's unclear until it's been revised.
Which part of the
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 4:16 PM, Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 3:52 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 00:11:18 -0700
Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
GLEP 55: On hold pending a concrete requirement for it. GLEP 54 may
be,
On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 16:16:23 -0700
Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As far as could be determined by the members at the meeting there no
compelling examples in Gentoo who to change or add global scope
functions in future EAPIs. As such those problems as stated are not
in scope for Gentoo
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 4:21 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 16:16:23 -0700
Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As far as could be determined by the members at the meeting there no
compelling examples in Gentoo who to change or add global scope
functions in
On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 16:37:35 -0700
Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't require any of those things, but maybe other people do and If
so; they should probably come
to the meeting or otherwise make themselves known because they were
not at the previous meeting.
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:43:06 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
People are already doing those other things, and doing them badly,
because there's currently no other option. This isn't some
hypothetical future requirement.
When you wrote doing them badly, did you mean to imply
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 03:13:44 +0200
Jeroen Roovers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:43:06 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
People are already doing those other things, and doing them badly,
because there's currently no other option. This isn't some
hypothetical
20 matches
Mail list logo
