2010-12-18 03:48:26 Donnie Berkholz napisał(a):
> On 02:45 Sat 18 Dec , Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> > Problem #1: USE flags cannot contain "." characters.
>
> This isn't a problem, it's an arbitrary statement of an antifeature. My
> understanding of the actual problem here is
On 02:45 Sat 18 Dec , Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> Problem #1: USE flags cannot contain "." characters.
This isn't a problem, it's an arbitrary statement of an antifeature. My
understanding of the actual problem here is that you want to have some
sort of USE flags for various
On 15:25 Fri 17 Dec , Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> How should a dependency like || ( a b c ) be interpreted?
>
> Traditionally, it's been described as something like:
>
> * if a matches an installed package, a
> * otherwise, if b matches an installed package, b
> * otherwise, if c matches an inst
This is the summary of some problems and suggested new features in EAPI="4",
which would solve
these problems.
Problem #1: USE flags cannot contain "." characters.
The following solutions have been
Maciej Mrozowski wrote:
On Wednesday 15 of December 2010 17:03:12 Matt Turner wrote:
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 12:25 PM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr."
wrote:
By the way, we have a nice team of arch and herd testers - how about
encouraging them to wrangle some bugs?
Yeah, I just came h
On Wednesday 15 of December 2010 17:03:12 Matt Turner wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 12:25 PM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr."
>
> wrote:
> > By the way, we have a nice team of arch and herd testers - how about
> > encouraging them to wrangle some bugs?
>
> Yeah, I just came here to say this. One certainl
* Ciaran McCreesh :
> Is there anything in particular holding back replacing most or all of
> the remaining old-style virtuals with new 'package' virtuals?
> There's still that stupid !virtual/blah thing to deal with. Old style
> virtual providers are allowed to block their own virtual to mean "th
Old-style virtuals are extremely messy and introduce an awful lot of
complexity. They were supposed to be on the way out several years ago,
with GLEP 37, but that seems to have stalled.
Is there anything in particular holding back replacing most or all of
the remaining old-style virtuals with new
On 12/17/10 18:09, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 17:56:21 +0100
> Sebastian Luther wrote:
Why can't the PM handle >= / < cases itself?
>>>
>>> Because things are almost never as simple as 'just' >= / <. You can
>>> add in clever trickery to deal with very specific cases, but th
On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 17:56:21 +0100
Sebastian Luther wrote:
> >> Why can't the PM handle >= / < cases itself?
> >
> > Because things are almost never as simple as 'just' >= / <. You can
> > add in clever trickery to deal with very specific cases, but the
> > second someone throws things off by add
On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 17:49:22 +0100
"Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> > Paludis currently interprets this as "I prefer <1.3.99.901, but will
> > also accept >=1.3.99.901". In particular, if <1.3.99.901[xcb] is
> > already installed, libX11 won't be upgraded. Some Portage versions
> > also do this, and o
Am 17.12.2010 17:37, schrieb Ciaran McCreesh:
> On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 17:27:05 +0100
> Sebastian Luther wrote:
>> Am 17.12.2010 16:25, schrieb Ciaran McCreesh:
>>> So would anyone be especially opposed to making "best leftmost" an
>>> explicit requirement, enforced by repoman where possible (at leas
On 12/17/10 4:25 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> As a result of things like this, Portage has had various different sets
> of heuristics over time, and Paludis has had a different set.
Generally it seems fine to have different heuristics (I'll comment on
the specific problem below).
> Paludis curren
On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 17:27:05 +0100
Sebastian Luther wrote:
> Am 17.12.2010 16:25, schrieb Ciaran McCreesh:
> > So would anyone be especially opposed to making "best leftmost" an
> > explicit requirement, enforced by repoman where possible (at least
> > for the >= / < case)?
>
> Why can't the PM h
Am 17.12.2010 16:25, schrieb Ciaran McCreesh:
> So would anyone be especially opposed to making "best leftmost" an
> explicit requirement, enforced by repoman where possible (at least for
> the >= / < case)?
>
Why can't the PM handle >= / < cases itself?
Sebastian
How should a dependency like || ( a b c ) be interpreted?
Traditionally, it's been described as something like:
* if a matches an installed package, a
* otherwise, if b matches an installed package, b
* otherwise, if c matches an installed package, c
* otherwise, if a is installable, a
* otherwis
On 16/12/10 21:16, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thursday, December 16, 2010 03:01:58 justin wrote:
>> the tcltk herd is nearly dead. I am fixing bugs there and I am getting
>> the queue down to an excaptable number. The only package which makes me
>> headaches is dev-tcltk/expect. It seems, that ther
17 matches
Mail list logo
