On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 05:49:08 +1200
Kent Fredric wrote:
> On 4 July 2012 02:16, Michał Górny 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 no
On 4 July 2012 05:56, Ciaran McCreesh 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 know a even exists till afte
On 4 July 2012 02:16, Michał Górny 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: before both a &
On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 20:24:43 +1200
Kent Fredric wrote:
> On 3 July 2012 19:08, Ciaran McCreesh
> wrote:
> > On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 15:44:04 +1200
> > Kent Fredric wrote:
> >> Firstly, we already have a ^^( ) syntax for REQUIRED_USE , "one
> >> of, but not more than one of".
> >
> > A user has a and
On 4 July 2012 02:16, Michał Górny 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/* will need to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 03/07/12 05:05 AM, Kent Fredric wrote:
> On 3 July 2012 20:24, Michał Górny 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 --auto
On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 21:05:46 +1200
Kent Fredric wrote:
> On 3 July 2012 20:24, Michał Górny 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 ver
On 3 July 2012 20:24, Michał Górny 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:http://search.c
On 3 July 2012 19:08, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 15:44:04 +1200
> Kent Fredric 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.
On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 15:44:04 +1200
Kent Fredric 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 this
> notatio
On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 15:44:04 +1200
Kent Fredric 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
signature.asc
Descri
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 this
notation, but they're a bit messy.
For instance, we seem to find the need fo
12 matches
Mail list logo
