(Everything here is meant to be educational, not really commenting on
anything else.)
On Thu, 2007-02-22 at 12:04 -0800, Brian Harring wrote:
> Said spec covers profiles also; mentioning at least the existance of
> the misc STAGE* settings isn't a horrible idea, even if not going into
> detail-
On Freitag, 23. Februar 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Because the solution doesn't generalise. Consider:
> || ( a? ( a ) b ) a? ( a2 )
I didn't imply it to be a solution to the || ( use? ) problem you started the
thread with.
> And because it makes things more rather than less complicated...
On Mittwoch, 21. Februar 2007, Timothy Redaelli wrote:
> What do you think about custom-cflags global USE?
I'd be pleased to see the flag removed. I think it's up to the maintainers, if
they accept bug reports due to custom cflags, even though upstream doesn't or
restrict them for other reasons.
On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 01:30:14 +0100 Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| What about the use && has_version double check!? Apart from being
| ugly and still needed in some cases, it isn't slot safe. Why don't we
| let the package manager unset the use flags corresponding to stripped
| optional
Quoting Georgi Georgiev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Quoting "Kevin F. Quinn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 19:08:48 +
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The example given in ebuild(5) is:
|| (
sdl? ( media-libs/libsdl )
svga? ( media-libs/svgalib )
op
On Donnerstag, 22. Februar 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Inside || ( ) blocks, the package manager first removes any use? ( )
> blocks that are *immediate* (that is to say, not inside ( ) themselves)
> children if the use flag is not enabled (or disabled for !use?). Then,
> if the || ( ) block is
If that, what you stated in your last three paragraphs - and I do agree with
it - will be the case, this proposed PMS will be dismissed and Paludis
remains with a more or less accurate description, of what isn't a Gentoo
package manager.
Carsten
pgpf4jh4lkHfG.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Quoting "Kevin F. Quinn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 19:08:48 +
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The example given in ebuild(5) is:
|| (
sdl? ( media-libs/libsdl )
svga? ( media-libs/svgalib )
opengl? ( virtual/opengl )
ggi? ( med
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 19:08:48 +
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The example given in ebuild(5) is:
>
> || (
> sdl? ( media-libs/libsdl )
> svga? ( media-libs/svgalib )
> opengl? ( virtual/opengl )
> ggi? ( media-libs/libggi )
> virtu
On 2/22/07, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And if you want a perfect example of reverting to ad hominem rather
than technical discussion, I suggest you reread your own email.
I did. I don't see any ad hominem attacks. I was very careful not to
say anything nasty.
Even assuming I am
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 22:35:59 +0100 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| On Thursday 22 February 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 04:04:37 + Steve Long
| > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > | > I'm saying that until there is an independent implementation,
| > | > the spec
On Thursday 22 February 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> By that same argument, anybody who ever had to deal with abuse from bug
> wranglers wouldn't be using Gentoo. Which would mean a whole lot
> fewer users.
Grow up.
--
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Homepage: http:
On Thursday 22 February 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 04:04:37 + Steve Long
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | > I'm saying that until there is an independent implementation, the
> | > specification is worthless and will contain huge numbers of errors.
> |
> | Seriously? Wi
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 22:02:27 +0100 Simon Stelling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > || (
| > sdl? ( media-libs/libsdl )
| > svga? ( media-libs/svgalib )
| > opengl? ( virtual/opengl )
| > ggi? ( media-libs/libggi )
| > virtual/x
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 22:05:56 +0100 Thomas de Grenier de Latour
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 19:08:48 +, Ciaran McCreesh
| <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > As has been discussed in the past, the only correct way of handling
| > this from an ebuild perspective is lots of use &&
Simon Stelling wrote:
[snip crap]
Actually, ignore me, there's a fundamental flaw in my thinking.
--
Kind Regards,
Simon Stelling
Gentoo/AMD64 developer
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 19:08:48 +, Ciaran McCreesh
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As has been discussed in the past, the only correct way of handling
> this from an ebuild perspective is lots of use && has_version calls
Which sounds like trying to mimic whatever the deps solver logic may
have been
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> || (
> sdl? ( media-libs/libsdl )
> svga? ( media-libs/svgalib )
> opengl? ( virtual/opengl )
> ggi? ( media-libs/libggi )
> virtual/x
> )
> As has been discussed in the past, the only correct way of handling
> this from
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 12:04:58 -0800 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Said spec covers profiles also; mentioning at least the existance of
| the misc STAGE* settings isn't a horrible idea, even if not going
| into detail- anyone digging through the profiles will see them, and
| likely wond
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 08:11:34PM +0100, Danny van Dyk wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 22. Februar 2007 17:41 schrieb Brian Harring:
> > Further, getting away from the daft FUD we're trying to 'replace the
> > ebuild format' that was leveled.
> >
> > > Also have a look at our statements regarding overlays
Am Donnerstag, 22. Februar 2007 17:41 schrieb Brian Harring:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 05:07:22PM +0100, Danny van Dyk wrote:
> > Am Donnerstag, 22. Februar 2007 14:26 schrieb Brian Harring:
> > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 04:13:11AM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 04:04:37
Is the current || ( use? ( ) ) behaviour something that is desirable?
As far as I know, every package manager currently implements it, but
it's also one of those things that's a nuisance to explain and it
appears to exist only because of how early Portage versions did
flattening.
More specifically
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 06:42:39PM +0100, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 17:10:38 +0100
> Marien Zwart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The
> > idea was to not get any messy portage quirks documented as required
> > standard behaviour, the risk here is that we'll now get paludis quirk
Jim Ramsay wrote:
> x11-plugins/gkrellmitime
My mistake, this should not have been masked, and is no longer masked.
--
Jim Ramsay
Gentoo/Linux Developer (rox)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
# Jim Ramsay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (22 Feb 2007)
# Pending removal 24 Mar 2007, bug 151446
# These gkrellm-1 plugins have no gkrellm-2 equivalent
x11-plugins/gkrellm-console
x11-plugins/gkrellmitime
x11-plugins/gkrellm-logwatch
x11-plugins/gkrellmouse
x11-plugins/gkrellm-sensors
x11-plugins/gkrellmwh
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 17:10:38 +0100
Marien Zwart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am a bit unsure about what the goal for PMS is here. It does not
> seem to be to document what a certain (the current?) version of
> portage does, as the defacto standard. Instead you want to document
> what portages *i
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 17:10:38 +0100 Marien Zwart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| I am a bit unsure about what the goal for PMS is here. It does not
| seem to be to document what a certain (the current?) version of
| portage does, as the defacto standard. Instead you want to document
| what portages *in
I have fixed some more packages today and made a cron(run every hour) to
generate transition status:
http://dev.gentooexperimental.org/~peper/mf2/mf2-status.txt
--
Best Regards,
Piotr Jaroszyński
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 05:26:56 -0800 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| > | Seriously? Without an implementation, your spec of what should
| > | happen will have loads of errors?
| >
| > Yes. It will describe what people think is allowed, rather than what
| > really is.
|
| If you're writin
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 17:10:38 +0100
Marien Zwart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The
> idea was to not get any messy portage quirks documented as required
> standard behaviour, the risk here is that we'll now get paludis quirks
> documented as required standard behaviour.
Well, that'll come out in re
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 01:42:47 -0700 "Daniel Robbins"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Also, talk about derailing Paludis - *your behavior* is what's
| derailing the future of Paludis and making people uncomfortable with
| your solo development style. I will not use Paludis, contribute to it,
| or sugges
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 10:20:47 -0500
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This I understand. However, your previous comments (and spb's saying
> he's busy with some other things) has made some people, myself
> included, wonder if you could possibly use some more help. We aren't
> talking
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 05:07:22PM +0100, Danny van Dyk wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 22. Februar 2007 14:26 schrieb Brian Harring:
> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 04:13:11AM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 04:04:37 + Steve Long
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > | In process
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 04:13:11AM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 04:04:37 + Steve Long
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | In process terms, I can't understand why the team working on it isn't
> | a pkgcore dev (eg marienz if you can't communicate with ferringb)
>
> Because
Am Donnerstag, 22. Februar 2007 14:26 schrieb Brian Harring:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 04:13:11AM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 04:04:37 + Steve Long
> >
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > | > I'm saying that until there is an independent implementation,
> > | > the spec
On Wed, 2007-02-21 at 16:59 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 07:31:44 +0100 Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | Now, I think we could wait even a bit more, but there is much interest
> | in seeing it complete so is natural that more people are willing to
> | help speedi
On Wed, 2007-02-21 at 21:33 -0800, antarus wrote:
> I think the whole deal is blown out of proportion, mostly because many
> people dislike Ciaran, and unfortunately Ciaran dislikes (or distrusts,
> may be a better word) many other people (myself and Brian Harring
> included). If the aim is to
On Thu, 2007-02-22 at 04:13 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | and Gianelloni for the infrastructure.
>
> And what on earth do infrastructure have to do with a package manager
> specification?
Especially considering that I am not an infrastructure guy. I'll be
honest. I'm not concerned personall
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 13:18:13 +0100
"Ioannis Aslanidis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As for Ciaran bashing Jakub, I can't help but nod (and gasp at
> > some of Jakub's comments) - for quite some time now.
>
> Bashing on someone is always wrong.
> Bashing on someone gets you banned.
Tell that to
Brian Harring wrote:
| Seriously? Without an implementation, your spec of what should happen
| will have loads of errors?
Yes. It will describe what people think is allowed, rather than what
really is.
> Don't think so; making the point that if attempting to write the spe
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 09:04:04AM +0100, Christian Faulhammer wrote:
> Stefan Schweizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Sadly this feature was removed from portage again - nice to see it
> > coming up again. Please fix or point out ebuilds that are broken.
>
> Yep. Could someone compile a list (wi
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 02:43:57PM +0100, Thomas R??sner wrote:
> Brian Harring schrieb:
> >On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 04:13:11AM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> >
> >>On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 04:04:37 + Steve Long
> >><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>| > I'm saying that until there is an independent i
Brian Harring schrieb:
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 04:13:11AM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 04:04:37 + Steve Long
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > I'm saying that until there is an independent implementation, the
| > specification is worthless and will contain huge numbers o
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 04:13:11AM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 04:04:37 + Steve Long
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | > I'm saying that until there is an independent implementation, the
> | > specification is worthless and will contain huge numbers of errors.
> |
> | Se
On 2/22/07, Markus Ullmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So after peper and myself have been on fixing most stuff related to this
topic yesterday, here now is a list with remaining packages and their
respective maintainers.
http://dev.gentoo.org/~jokey/manifest2/manifest2-20070222.txt
As for Ciaran bashing Jakub, I can't help but nod (and gasp at
some of Jakub's comments) - for quite some time now.
Bashing on someone is always wrong.
Bashing on someone gets you banned.
--
Ioannis Aslanidis
0xB9B11F4E
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 21:48:49 -0700
"Daniel Robbins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/21/07, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Are you insane? What on earth could Jakub possibly contribute? If
> > you want a rough indication of Jakub's level of ebuild
> > understanding, take a look at
fest2/manifest2-20070222.txt
Fixed my stuff there:
sys-block/tw_cli
sys-block/scsiping
net-misc/nstx
--
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux Developer
E-Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85
pgpGIopR5qMjO.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Markus Ullmann napsal(a):
> So after peper and myself have been on fixing most stuff related to this
> topic yesterday, here now is a list with remaining packages and their
> respective maintainers.
>
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~jokey/manifest2/manifest2-20070222.txt
>
>
So after peper and myself have been on fixing most stuff related to this
topic yesterday, here now is a list with remaining packages and their
respective maintainers.
http://dev.gentoo.org/~jokey/manifest2/manifest2-20070222.txt
Greetz
Jokey
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On 2/21/07, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm perfectly polite when I'm not replying to the dozenth deliberate
attempt to derail something into which I have put a lot of effort...
Look, I don't want to waste everyone's time by dismantling in painful
detail the foolishness of what y
On 2/22/07, Daniel Robbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2/21/07, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are you insane? What on earth could Jakub possibly contribute? If you
> want a rough indication of Jakub's level of ebuild understanding, take
> a look at bug 160328.
Is there any proce
52 matches
Mail list logo
