On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 01:51:27 -0700
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 08/16/2011 01:29 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 01:10:48 -0700
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 08/16/2011 12:40 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 00:26:41 -0700
Zac Medico
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 03:01:26 -0700
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 08/16/2011 02:32 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 00:19:38 -0700
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
Isn't that another, ugly, non-PMS hack which makes people think
they are creating correct
On Wed, 17 Aug 2011, Michał Górny wrote:
And isn't a random PROPERTIES value more fragile? If someone uses it
incorrectly, the results are undefined. With older PMs, results are
undefined.
While having empty SRC_URI and no DEFINED_PHASES guarantees that
the ebuild won't install a file.
On 08/17/2011 12:20 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 03:01:26 -0700
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 08/16/2011 02:32 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 00:19:38 -0700
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
Isn't that another, ugly, non-PMS hack which makes
On 08/17/2011 12:16 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 01:51:27 -0700
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 08/16/2011 01:29 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 01:10:48 -0700
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 08/16/2011 12:40 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
On Tue, 16
On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 06:27:36 -0700
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
Note that the jre and jdk relationship isn't necessarily the only
relationship with these properties. Wouldn't it be better to make the
dependency resolver a bit smarter (as implemented in portage for many
years), than to
On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 06:40:45 -0700
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
Is the real issue that ebuild developers aren't using workarounds in
order to overcome the shortcomings of some dependency resolvers?
Really?
The real issue is that Portage has nearly as much unspecified voodoo
in its
On 08/17/2011 07:24 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 06:40:45 -0700
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
Is the real issue that ebuild developers aren't using workarounds in
order to overcome the shortcomings of some dependency resolvers?
Really?
The real issue is that
On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 10:19:06 +0200
Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, 17 Aug 2011, Michał Górny wrote:
And isn't a random PROPERTIES value more fragile? If someone uses it
incorrectly, the results are undefined. With older PMs, results are
undefined.
While having empty
On 08/17/2011 10:03 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 10:19:06 +0200
Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, 17 Aug 2011, Michał Górny wrote:
And isn't a random PROPERTIES value more fragile? If someone uses it
incorrectly, the results are undefined. With older PMs, results
On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 10:58:32 -0700
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
You can insist on this SRC_URI + DEFINED_PHASES approach, but I doubt
that package manager developers will want to rely on these kinds of
fragile assumptions. You thought that relying on the virtual
category name was
On Wed, 17 Aug 2011, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 10:58:32 -0700
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
You can insist on this SRC_URI + DEFINED_PHASES approach, but I
doubt that package manager developers will want to rely on these
kinds of fragile assumptions. You thought that
On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 19:42:01 -0700
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 08/15/2011 11:41 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
Hello,
Now that we don't have any old-style virtuals in gx86 anymore,
I think the 'virtual' category is basically one another plain
category nowadays.
In
On 08/16/2011 12:01 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 19:42:01 -0700
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 08/15/2011 11:41 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
Hello,
Now that we don't have any old-style virtuals in gx86 anymore,
I think the 'virtual' category is basically one another
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/16/2011 12:01 AM, Micha? Górny wrote:
Considering the number of different virtuals in this category,
maybe it would be a good idea to split it a little? What I'm
proposing is maybe creating some kind of '*-virtual' categories.
For
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 00:26:41 -0700
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/16/2011 12:01 AM, Micha? Górny wrote:
Considering the number of different virtuals in this category,
maybe it
On 08/16/2011 12:40 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 00:26:41 -0700
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 08/16/2011 12:01 AM, Micha? Górny wrote:
Considering the number of different virtuals in this category,
maybe it would be a good idea to split it a little? What I'm
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 01:10:48 -0700
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 08/16/2011 12:40 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 00:26:41 -0700
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 08/16/2011 12:01 AM, Micha? Górny wrote:
Considering the number of different virtuals in this
On 08/16/2011 01:29 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 01:10:48 -0700
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 08/16/2011 12:40 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 00:26:41 -0700
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 08/16/2011 12:01 AM, Micha? Górny wrote:
Considering
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 00:19:38 -0700
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
Isn't that another, ugly, non-PMS hack which makes people think they
are creating correct packages?
Are you saying that you'd prefer to have package managers pull in
redundant packages for not good reason?
No, package
On 08/16/2011 02:32 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 00:19:38 -0700
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
Isn't that another, ugly, non-PMS hack which makes people think they
are creating correct packages?
Are you saying that you'd prefer to have package managers pull in
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 03:01:26 -0700
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 08/16/2011 02:32 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 00:19:38 -0700
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
Isn't that another, ugly, non-PMS hack which makes people think
they are creating correct
On Monday, August 15, 2011 17:33:24 Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
I don't see a pressing need to split virtual/ yet :)
+1
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Hello,
Now that we don't have any old-style virtuals in gx86 anymore,
I think the 'virtual' category is basically one another plain category
nowadays.
Considering the number of different virtuals in this category, maybe it
would be a good idea to split it a little? What I'm proposing is maybe
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
Hello,
Now that we don't have any old-style virtuals in gx86 anymore,
I think the 'virtual' category is basically one another plain category
nowadays.
Considering the number of different virtuals in this category, maybe
On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 12:46:59 -0700
Alec Warner anta...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org
wrote:
Hello,
Now that we don't have any old-style virtuals in gx86 anymore,
I think the 'virtual' category is basically one another plain
category
On 08/15/11 21:55, Michał Górny wrote:
On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 12:46:59 -0700
Alec Warner anta...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org
wrote:
Hello,
Now that we don't have any old-style virtuals in gx86 anymore,
I think the 'virtual' category is
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 12:11 AM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
Considering the number of different virtuals in this category, maybe it
would be a good idea to split it a little? What I'm proposing is maybe
creating some kind of '*-virtual' categories.
For example, half of the current
110815 Patrick Lauer wrote:
On 08/15/11 21:55, Michał Górny wrote:
Considering the number of different virtuals in this category,
maybe it would be a good idea to split it a little?
-- maybe creating some kind of '*-virtual' categories.
For example, half of the current virtuals are prefixed
On 08/15/2011 11:41 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
Hello,
Now that we don't have any old-style virtuals in gx86 anymore,
I think the 'virtual' category is basically one another plain category
nowadays.
In sys-apps/portage, the virtual category is used as a hint to the
dependency resolver it needs
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 5:22 PM, Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 08/15/11 21:55, Michał Górny wrote:
On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 12:46:59 -0700
Alec Warner anta...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org
wrote:
Hello,
Now that we don't have
31 matches
Mail list logo
