On Sat, 2007-12-29 at 23:20 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 00:16:22 +0100
> Federico Ferri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > sorry if this has already suggested.
>
> It has. It solves nothing.
>
If it solves nothing you should at least post a link to the post you
made explaini
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 00:16:22 +0100
Federico Ferri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> sorry if this has already suggested.
It has. It solves nothing.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Ciaran McCreesh ha scritto:
> On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 18:03:27 +
> Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Using your analogy you should then recognise that there is a strong
>> dislike for pink and should seek a new colour that allows the building
>> of said extensions.
>>
>
> And what
On Thu, 2007-12-27 at 18:11 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 18:03:27 +
> Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-12-27 at 17:43 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > Or to put it another way, you're objecting to painting the house
> > > pink rather than green
On Thu, 2007-12-27 at 18:11 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 18:03:27 +
> Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-12-27 at 17:43 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > Or to put it another way, you're objecting to painting the house
> > > pink rather than green b
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 18:03:27 +
Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-12-27 at 17:43 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Or to put it another way, you're objecting to painting the house
> > pink rather than green because you don't like pink (because your
> > last house was green to
On Thu, 2007-12-27 at 17:43 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Or to put it another way, you're objecting to painting the house pink
> rather than green because you don't like pink (because your last house
> was green too), ignoring that it's been demonstrated that when painted
> green, it's impossibl
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 17:27:05 +
Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But I can smell a blatant hack that is just wrong to the bone like a
> lot of other people here.
Clearly not... As you say, you don't care to understand any of this.
You're just jumping in because you think you know what a
On Thu, 2007-12-27 at 16:50 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 16:45:06 +
> Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Alright, so where would you stick EAPI such that all the
> > > requirements that've previously been described are met?
> >
> > I neither know, nor care.
>
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 16:45:06 +
Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Alright, so where would you stick EAPI such that all the
> > requirements that've previously been described are met?
>
> I neither know, nor care.
>
> I just feel very strongly that the current proposal is wrong, and no
On Thu, 2007-12-27 at 16:32 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 15:04:52 +
> Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I understand that metadata in a file name is pure and simple hackery
> > that has no place here and the GLEP is a flimsy attempt to justify it.
>
> Alright, s
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 15:04:52 +
Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I understand that metadata in a file name is pure and simple hackery
> that has no place here and the GLEP is a flimsy attempt to justify it.
Alright, so where would you stick EAPI such that all the requirements
that've pr
Jan Kundrát a écrit :
> Roy Marples wrote:
>> I understand that metadata in a file name is pure and simple hackery
>> that has no place here and the GLEP is a flimsy attempt to justify it.
>
> Do you count "version" as metadata?
I'll bite :)
Version numbers aren't metadata because they uniquely
On Thu, 2007-12-27 at 16:39 +0100, Jan Kundrát wrote:
> Roy Marples wrote:
> > I understand that metadata in a file name is pure and simple hackery
> > that has no place here and the GLEP is a flimsy attempt to justify it.
>
> Do you count "version" as metadata?
No.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing
Roy Marples wrote:
> I understand that metadata in a file name is pure and simple hackery
> that has no place here and the GLEP is a flimsy attempt to justify it.
Do you count "version" as metadata?
Cheers,
-jkt
--
cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP di
Roy Marples wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-12-25 at 04:16 -0500, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
>> On 12/25/07, Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
Ok. So do you use an EAPI 0 environment to do the sourcing, or an EAPI
1 environment, or what?
>>> If it's that such a big deal,
On Tue, 2007-12-25 at 04:16 -0500, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On 12/25/07, Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Ok. So do you use an EAPI 0 environment to do the sourcing, or an EAPI
> > > 1 environment, or what?
> >
> > If it's that such a big deal, then simply ensure that
>
> Thankyou for
On 12/25/07, Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Ok. So do you use an EAPI 0 environment to do the sourcing, or an EAPI
> > 1 environment, or what?
>
> If it's that such a big deal, then simply ensure that
Thankyou for reading and understanding the GLEP before jumping in and
commenting.
--
On Tue, 2007-12-25 at 02:43 -0500, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Dec 25, 2007 2:38 AM, Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2007-12-25 at 02:26 -0500, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > On Dec 24, 2007 7:53 AM, Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > So to obtain EAPI from .ebuild you
On Dec 25, 2007 2:38 AM, Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-12-25 at 02:26 -0500, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Dec 24, 2007 7:53 AM, Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > So to obtain EAPI from .ebuild you would always do
> > > EAPI=`. /path/to/ebuild.ebuild; echo "${EAPI
On Tue, 2007-12-25 at 02:26 -0500, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Dec 24, 2007 7:53 AM, Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So to obtain EAPI from .ebuild you would always do
> > EAPI=`. /path/to/ebuild.ebuild; echo "${EAPI}"`
>
> Doesn't work with current ebuilds, nor future ebuilds. No point
On Dec 24, 2007 7:53 AM, Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So to obtain EAPI from .ebuild you would always do
> EAPI=`. /path/to/ebuild.ebuild; echo "${EAPI}"`
Doesn't work with current ebuilds, nor future ebuilds. No points!
--
Ciaran McCreesh
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Just picked this particular email to reply with my thoughts on this
thread.
On Mon, 2007-12-24 at 10:52 +, Steve Long wrote:
> But they come under the scope of this discussion, since this is about the
> long-term future of *every* EAPI. So let's discuss them
Impossible. History has proven aga
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 06:03:12 +
> Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> * Set the EAPI inside the ebuild in a way that makes it easy to
>> fetch it This is ok as atm only EAPI=1 is in the tree, so there is no
>> backward compatibility issue.
>
> It's both a backward
24 matches
Mail list logo
