On 28 June 2012 13:03, Matt Turner matts...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:45:46 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:43:10 +0200
Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
Le samedi 23 juin 2012 à 21:37 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh a écrit :
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:36:14 +0200
Marien Zwart mari...@gentoo.org wrote:
On za, 2012-06-23 at 17:08 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Is it that Paludis installs a newer SLOT even if a reverse
dependency
explicitly
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:45:46 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:43:10 +0200
Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
It treats -r300 as being newer than -r200, and so will
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 21:37:11 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:36:14 +0200
Marien Zwart mari...@gentoo.org wrote:
On za, 2012-06-23 at 17:08 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Is it that Paludis installs a newer SLOT even if a reverse
On 24 June 2012 06:50, Gilles Dartiguelongue e...@gentoo.org wrote:
Le samedi 23 juin 2012 à 18:30 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh a écrit :
It treats -r300 as being newer than -r200, and so will treat the gtk3
version or the jruby version as being newer versions of the gtk2
version or the ruby 1.8
On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 10:19:19 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
Think || ( a:3 a:2 ).
So now that you've stated the problem, maybe it's a good time to find
a proper solution for it.
That isn't the problem. That's an example of an effect of the problem.
The problem is that -r and
On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 11:58:07 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 10:19:19 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
Think || ( a:3 a:2 ).
So now that you've stated the problem, maybe it's a good time to
find a proper solution for it.
On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 13:21:01 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 11:58:07 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 10:19:19 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
Think || ( a:3 a:2 ).
So now that you've
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 17:12:04 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 17:20:23 +0300
Mart Raudsepp l...@gentoo.org wrote:
The 'standard' behaviour (which can be changed by the user) for
Paludis when doing complete resolutions is that whenever there's
There's been a move towards using slots for clever things that don't
fit the traditional way of how slots worked. Examples include the new
gtk2 / gtk3 handling and Ruby gems virtuals.
Aside from being abusive, this screws things up for Paludis users.
Paludis tends to bring in newer versions when
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 9:21 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
There's been a move towards using slots for clever things that don't
fit the traditional way of how slots worked. Examples include the new
gtk2 / gtk3 handling and Ruby gems virtuals.
Aside from being
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Mike Gilbert flop...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 9:21 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
There's been a move towards using slots for clever things that don't
fit the traditional way of how slots worked. Examples include the
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 10:06:58 -0400
Mike Gilbert flop...@gentoo.org wrote:
I don't quite understand why this would be necessary.
Would funky-slots just be used in situations where ebuilds with
the same PV but different PVR have different slots?
Taking the gtk2/gtk3 example, I think the
On L, 2012-06-23 at 15:10 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 10:06:58 -0400
Mike Gilbert flop...@gentoo.org wrote:
I don't quite understand why this would be necessary.
Would funky-slots just be used in situations where ebuilds with
the same PV but different PVR have
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 15:10:01 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 10:06:58 -0400
Mike Gilbert flop...@gentoo.org wrote:
I don't quite understand why this would be necessary.
Would funky-slots just be used in situations where ebuilds with
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 17:51:01 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
I think you should start by describing the problem so we all could
understand it, and then we can start thinking about a solution.
It's simple: abusing versions and slots invalidates what is otherwise
sensible logic. Thus
On 23.06.2012 15:21, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
There's been a move towards using slots for clever things that don't
fit the traditional way of how slots worked. Examples include the new
gtk2 / gtk3 handling and Ruby gems virtuals.
Aside from being abusive, this screws things up for Paludis
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 17:20:23 +0300
Mart Raudsepp l...@gentoo.org wrote:
The 'standard' behaviour (which can be changed by the user) for
Paludis when doing complete resolutions is that whenever there's
a slot of something installed, it will try to bring in the newest
version of that
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:13:23 +0200
Justin j...@gentoo.org wrote:
Did you read what you wrote and thought about what you request from
others? Probably you better should.
Uh huh, and I think we all know there's a huge difference between
knowing what versions and slots are and knowing what a
On 06/23/12 21:21, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
There's been a move towards using slots for clever things that don't
fit the traditional way of how slots worked. Examples include the new
gtk2 / gtk3 handling and Ruby gems virtuals.
Aside from being abusive,
No, it solves a real problem.
this
On 23.06.2012 18:17, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:13:23 +0200
Justin j...@gentoo.org wrote:
Did you read what you wrote and thought about what you request from
others? Probably you better should.
Uh huh, and I think we all know there's a huge difference between
knowing
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:47:26 +0200
Justin j...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 23.06.2012 18:17, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:13:23 +0200
Justin j...@gentoo.org wrote:
Did you read what you wrote and thought about what you request from
others? Probably you better should.
Uh
On 23.06.2012 18:53, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:47:26 +0200
Justin j...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 23.06.2012 18:17, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:13:23 +0200
Justin j...@gentoo.org wrote:
Did you read what you wrote and thought about what you request from
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:13:23 +0200
Justin j...@gentoo.org wrote:
Did you read what you wrote and thought about what you request from
others? Probably you better should.
Uh huh, and I think we all know
El sáb, 23-06-2012 a las 17:53 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:47:26 +0200
Justin j...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 23.06.2012 18:17, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:13:23 +0200
Justin j...@gentoo.org wrote:
Did you read what you wrote and thought about
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 10:16:42 -0700
Alec Warner anta...@gentoo.org wrote:
I don't think the documentation forbids what these developers are
doing.
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=2chap=1
This means that counting goes as follows: 1.0 (initial version),
1.0-r1,
On 24 June 2012 05:16, Alec Warner anta...@gentoo.org wrote:
That's covered in the devmanual and in the user documentation, so
there's no need to repeat it here.
http://devmanual.gentoo.org/general-concepts/slotting/index.html
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:23:57 +0200
Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
Did you send this proposal seriously or only to troll comparing it
with what you think tommy did with multilib thread?
Uhm, this proposal is exactly in line with dozens of others that have
been made for EAPI 5. It's simple,
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 10:16:42 -0700
Alec Warner anta...@gentoo.org wrote:
I don't think the documentation forbids what these developers are
doing.
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 10:35:36 -0700
Alec Warner anta...@gentoo.org wrote:
I don't think portage has the behavior that paludis does, so most
users are not likely to experience this particular problem. You know
as well as I that the marking isn't necessarily trivial.
But this time it is trivial.
El sáb, 23-06-2012 a las 18:30 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:23:57 +0200
Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
Did you send this proposal seriously or only to troll comparing it
with what you think tommy did with multilib thread?
Uhm, this proposal is exactly in
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:43:10 +0200
Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
It treats -r300 as being newer than -r200, and so will treat the
gtk3 version or the jruby version as being newer versions of
the gtk2 version or the ruby 1.8 version, just as it tries to
bring in a newer GCC and so on.
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:45:46 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:43:10 +0200
Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
It treats -r300 as being newer than -r200, and so will treat the
gtk3 version or the jruby version as being newer versions of
El sáb, 23-06-2012 a las 18:45 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:43:10 +0200
Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
It treats -r300 as being newer than -r200, and so will treat the
gtk3 version or the jruby version as being newer versions of
the gtk2 version or the
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:54:13 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:45:46 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:43:10 +0200
Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
It treats -r300 as being newer than -r200, and so will
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:56:42 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:54:13 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:45:46 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:43:10 +0200
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 20:09:03 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
That's just it, though -- this no longer holds. -r300 is now being
used for something that is exactly the same version as -r200.
Did you look at SONAME?
Look at SONAME before deciding what package to install? Kindly
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:06:38 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 20:09:03 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
That's just it, though -- this no longer holds. -r300 is now being
used for something that is exactly the same version as
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 20:23:13 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:06:38 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 20:09:03 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
That's just it, though -- this no longer holds. -r300
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:22:37 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 20:23:13 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:06:38 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 20:09:03 +0200
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 9:22 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 20:23:13 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:06:38 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 20:09:03 +0200
Michał
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 21:35:47 +0300
Alex Alexander wi...@gentoo.org wrote:
The package mangler does not know that 1.1-r300 is not a better
version than 1.1-r200, or that 1.2-r200 is not a better version
than 1.1-r300. Indicating packages where this kind of strangeness
happens allows
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 21:35:47 +0300
Alex Alexander wi...@gentoo.org wrote:
The package mangler does not know that 1.1-r300 is not a better
version than 1.1-r200, or that 1.2-r200 is not a better version
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:14:32 +0300
Alex Alexander wi...@gentoo.org wrote:
If it is a package without reverse dependencies, updating to the most
recent slot and/or version should be expected unless the user has the
slot defined in the world file.
That's the part that no longer holds. The
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 10:16 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:14:32 +0300
Alex Alexander wi...@gentoo.org wrote:
If it is a package without reverse dependencies, updating to the most
recent slot and/or version should be expected unless the user
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:27:03 +0300
Alex Alexander wi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 10:16 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:14:32 +0300
Alex Alexander wi...@gentoo.org wrote:
If it is a package without reverse dependencies,
On za, 2012-06-23 at 17:08 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Is it that Paludis installs a newer SLOT even if a reverse
dependency
explicitly requests another SLOT? Sounds like a bug to me.
No, it's that if a user requests a complete resolution, Paludis
installs the newest version of
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:36:14 +0200
Marien Zwart mari...@gentoo.org wrote:
On za, 2012-06-23 at 17:08 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Is it that Paludis installs a newer SLOT even if a reverse
dependency
explicitly requests another SLOT? Sounds like a bug to me.
No, it's that if a user
Le samedi 23 juin 2012 à 18:30 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh a écrit :
It treats -r300 as being newer than -r200, and so will treat the gtk3
version or the jruby version as being newer versions of the gtk2
version or the ruby 1.8 version, just as it tries to bring in a
newer GCC and so on.
I'm
49 matches
Mail list logo
