On Friday 15 May 2009 02:42:33 George Prowse wrote:
Having countered those four points I guess you agree with the other five
then. Over 50% success rate (by your definition) is hardly being
ignorant or trolling
In that case we can assume that Patrick agrees with all my counterpoints,
since he
Richard Freeman ri...@gentoo.org said:
AllenJB wrote:
All that's going to happen is Gentoo will have many many buggy and
out of date packages in the MAIN TREE. Exactly where they shouldn't
be. You claim quality won't be sacrificed, but I simply can't see
this without any attempt to solve
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thilo Bangert wrote:
Richard Freeman ri...@gentoo.org said:
AllenJB wrote:
All that's going to happen is Gentoo will have many many buggy and
out of date packages in the MAIN TREE. Exactly where they shouldn't
be. You claim quality won't be
Thilo Bangert wrote:
AFAIK, we have never explicitly made this distinction clear. if we had, we
would have to remove stuff from portage which doesnt live up to the
standards.
I'm all for that. In reality we tend to leave them alone until a
security issue actually comes up, which is
2009/5/15 Marijn Schouten (hkBst) hk...@gentoo.org:
Thilo Bangert wrote:
Fedora is a much more current distribution than Gentoo - and has been for
a couple of years...
Please elaborate what exactly you think Fedora does better than we do. I have
no
first-hand experience with Fedora, but
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 14 May 2009 20:06:51 +0200
Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote:
Let EAPI be defined as (the part behind the = of) the first line of
the ebuild starting with EAPI=
Uh, so horribly utterly and obviously wrong.
inherit foo
EAPI=4
where foo is both a
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 10:47:24AM +0200, Tiziano Müller wrote:
Thanks Robin for finally pushing this in the tree, just didn't find the
time to.
Maybe it's a good time to emphasize this: Keep in mind that changing the
EAPI in an ebuild requires a revision bump (including reset to unstable
Thanks Robin for finally pushing this in the tree, just didn't find the
time to.
Maybe it's a good time to emphasize this: Keep in mind that changing the
EAPI in an ebuild requires a revision bump (including reset to unstable
keywords, etc.).
Cheers,
Tiziano
Am Donnerstag, den 14.05.2009, 17:06
On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 16:40 +0100, Sérgio Almeida wrote:
This .uselect
should not contain symlinks, but plain (text?) files only.
Do we really need more than one file?
No, at least not to define the _values_ of a profile.
Checklist:
* Hostname
* Uname
* {$chost}
Mmm... Maybe we
Daniel Pielmeier daniel.pielme...@googlemail.com posted
6142e6140905150344y4a8007b5wd352ffe891e49...@mail.gmail.com, excerpted
below, on Fri, 15 May 2009 12:44:47 +0200:
2009/5/15 Marijn Schouten (hkBst) hk...@gentoo.org:
Thilo Bangert wrote:
Fedora is a much more current distribution than
Sven sv...@delirium.ch posted loom.20090514t182756-...@post.gmane.org,
excerpted below, on Thu, 14 May 2009 18:34:29 +:
Duncan 1i5t5.duncan at cox.net writes:
FWIW, that'd not be a portage issue per se, but an EAPI issue, since it
I see, very interesting! Sounds like a lengthy process,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 03:49:51AM -0700, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 10:47:24AM +0200, Tiziano M?ller wrote:
Thanks Robin for finally pushing this in the tree, just didn't find the
time to.
Maybe it's a good time to
# Alex Legler a...@gentoo.org (15 May 2009)
# Masked for removal wrt bug #251833. Due for removal in 30 days.
# Use app-admin/eselect-ruby instead.
dev-ruby/ruby-config
=dev-lang/ruby-1.8.6_p114
Ruby _p114 is the last Ruby with Oniguruma patches, however there are numerous
security issues. Ruby
# Merged in dev-texlive/texlive-langmongolian-2008, use that instead
# Masked for removal on 15 June 2009
dev-texlive/texlive-langmanju
Alexis.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Friday 15 May 2009 05:44:47 Richard Freeman wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 14 May 2009 20:06:51 +0200
Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote:
Let EAPI be defined as (the part behind the = of) the first line of
the ebuild starting with EAPI=
Uh, so horribly utterly and
On Fri, 15 May 2009 11:16:11 -0500
Robert R. Russell nahoy_kb...@hushmail.com wrote:
If I understand the problem GLEP 55 is trying to solve correctly, it
stems from portage's assumption that an unknown EAPI is equal to EAPI
0. Could that assumption be changed to an unknown EAPI is equal to
the
On Fri, 2009-05-15 at 00:44 +0200, Patrick Lauer wrote:
[...]
So if you were a lazy Unix coder you'd just restrict the current rules a bit
so that there's only one line starting with EAPI= allowed (or maybe you just
take the first or last one, but that's annoying) and if no such line matches
On Sat, 16 May 2009 00:28:36 +0530
Arun Raghavan ford_pref...@gentoo.org wrote:
As I've stated a long time ago, I'm for this solution. My
understanding is that there are 2 objections to this:
3) It doesn't solve the problem. It doesn't allow things like version
format extensions.
That's the
Robert R. Russell wrote:
snip
If I understand the problem GLEP 55 is trying to solve correctly, it stems
from portage's assumption that an unknown EAPI is equal to EAPI 0.
No, portage will reject an ebuild with an unknown EAPI, as per the spec.
(This is important for shared overlays.) Search
On Fri, 15 May 2009 20:12:03 +0100
Steven J Long sl...@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk wrote:
Robert R. Russell wrote:
snip
If I understand the problem GLEP 55 is trying to solve correctly,
it stems from portage's assumption that an unknown EAPI is equal to
EAPI 0.
No, portage will reject an
Robert Bridge wrote:
Patrick Lauer wrote:
On Thursday 14 May 2009 20:39:07 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 14 May 2009 20:06:51 +0200
Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote:
Let EAPI be defined as (the part behind the = of) the first line of
the ebuild starting with EAPI=
Uh, so horribly
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 10:53:37PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
It can't, because it doesn't know the EAPI until it's sourced the thing
using bash. Using things like += in global scope will break older bash
versions to the point that they can't
On Fri, 15 May 2009 14:43:29 -0500
William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 10:53:37PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
It can't, because it doesn't know the EAPI until it's sourced the
thing using bash. Using things like += in global scope will break
older bash
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Steven J Long wrote:
Robert R. Russell wrote:
snip
If I understand the problem GLEP 55 is trying to solve correctly,
it stems from portage's assumption that an unknown EAPI is equal to
EAPI 0.
No, portage will reject an ebuild with an unknown EAPI, as per the
On Fri, 15 May 2009 21:06:13 +0100
Steven J Long sl...@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk wrote:
Before an ebuild has had its metadata generated, its EAPI is
unknown. At this point, the package manager assumes EAPI 0.
With the format restriction, that everyone last year seemed happy
with, apart from
William Hubbs wrote:
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 03:49:51AM -0700, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 10:47:24AM +0200, Tiziano M?ller wrote:
Thanks Robin for finally pushing this in the tree, just didn't find the
time to.
Maybe it's a good time to emphasize this: Keep in mind that
On Friday 15 May 2009 21:06:13 Steven J Long wrote:
In practical terms, this is a useless proposal. It rightly got trashed
last year.
No, it did not get trashed, despite some people's attempts to make their
side sound more popular than it really is. Some people like the idea, some
don't, and
Could I ask that people stop closing bugs against the gold linker with
such classy witticisms as patches welcome. There is no patch a user can
provide to make a package build with the gold linker. These bugs should be
assigned to toolchain, not the maintainer of the package that gold happens to
Am Freitag, den 15.05.2009, 23:30 +0300 schrieb Petteri Räty:
William Hubbs wrote:
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 03:49:51AM -0700, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 10:47:24AM +0200, Tiziano M?ller wrote:
Thanks Robin for finally pushing this in the tree, just didn't find the
time
Le 15/05/2009 23:20, Ryan Hill a écrit :
Could I ask that people stop closing bugs against the gold linker with
such classy witticisms as patches welcome.
Honestly, a little heads up before gold hit portage would have been nice
too.
I already had 2 bugs with gold-related issues even before
Luca Barbato wrote:
Duncan wrote:
Namespace pollution? QEMU_USER_TARGETS and QEMU_SOFTMMU_TARGETS, maybe?
Right, anyway either one or two vars, anybody has a strong feeling
towards one of them or against any of them?
QEMU_SOFTMMU_TARGETS QEMU_USER_TARGETS, that's it.
Tiziano Müller wrote:
Am Freitag, den 15.05.2009, 23:30 +0300 schrieb Petteri Räty:
William Hubbs wrote:
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 03:49:51AM -0700, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 10:47:24AM +0200, Tiziano M?ller wrote:
Thanks Robin for finally pushing this in the tree, just
On Sat, 16 May 2009 02:31:45 +0300
Petteri Räty betelge...@gentoo.org wrote:
On the other hand you also have to make sure you have a stable
portage for a time long enough so mostly everyone has it installed.
Otherwise you could break users systems pretty badly depending on
the packages.
Petteri Räty betelge...@gentoo.org posted 4a0dd0ed.1070...@gentoo.org,
excerpted below, on Fri, 15 May 2009 23:30:37 +0300:
Indeed there's no problem switching EAPIs as long as a stable Portage
supports the EAPI you are migrating to. Portage was buggy with this when
EAPI 2 was introduced but
Why do we let utterly *useless* discussions eat into our precious
developer time?
Why is it that this thread has 500 replies, but Mart's
maintainer-wanted thread has less than 10?
I *do not care* if the ebuild format will not be properly extensible
when the need arises. We'll cross that bridge
35 matches
Mail list logo
