On 05:04 Thu 29 Nov , Duncan wrote:
> Leave it to ciarnm to be so direct, amusing tho it is, but that pretty
> much nails it. I've seen it said by some that Gentoo's no longer "fun".
> I disagree but honestly, ask yourself if there's a better way to ruin the
> fun remaining than by institu
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Wed, 28 Nov
2007 21:33:19 +:
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:14:05 -0800
> Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Many of the replies keep asking for details -- details that don't
>> exist. Apply the concept abs
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 18:58:07 -0800
"Robin H. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The ( ) form means something else for package dependencies, and so
> > can't be used for ranged dependencies. In particular:
> > ( >=foo/bar-3 > will (correctly) be matched if both foo/bar-5 and foo/bar-1 are
On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 02:48:52AM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 18:40:27 -0800
> "Robin H. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm for ranged licenses, but I think attention needs to be paid to the
> > syntax. The postfix [] form does nicely separate the version
> > infor
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 18:40:27 -0800
"Robin H. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm for ranged licenses, but I think attention needs to be paid to the
> syntax. The postfix [] form does nicely separate the version
> information from the actual license name (moreso than the traditional
> CPV atom
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 11:02:25PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 23:54:57 +0100
> Thilo Bangert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > there is also the legal argument. it's better to state explicitly
> > which versions apply and not have to cleanup the mess, when somebody
> > decides
On 11/28/07, Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 16:43 Wed 28 Nov , Alec Warner wrote:
> > On 11/28/07, Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Here's my understanding of what you said: Because people will break
> > > rules and violate standards, we shouldn't have any.
> >
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 23:54:57 +0100
> Thilo Bangert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> there is also the legal argument. it's better to state explicitly
>> which versions apply and not have to cleanup the mess, when somebody
>> decides to release GPL-2.5.
>
> That's an argument
On 16:43 Wed 28 Nov , Alec Warner wrote:
> On 11/28/07, Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Here's my understanding of what you said: Because people will break
> > rules and violate standards, we shouldn't have any.
> >
> > Is that accurate?
> >
>
> Kind of.
>
> Most people follow
On 11/28/07, Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 19:10 Tue 27 Nov , Alec Warner wrote:
> > No, because this is not a realistic requirement, it's an ideal case.
> > People will just commit changes without documentation anyway.
>
> Here's my understanding of what you said: Because peo
On 21:33 Wed 28 Nov , Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:14:05 -0800
> > What remains unclear about this principle?
>
> It's entirely nebulous and has nothing that can be discussed or agreed
> upon, beyond giving people a feel good "ooh, yes, we should do this"
> with no practical
There is no away to describe the amount of fun it has been working with you and
reading your inputs into the future of Gentoo. I hope you will continue to keep
your eyes open for this children of yours.
Best of luck for you future endeavors.
Seemant Kulleen escreveu:
> Dear Gentoo Devs and Users,
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 23:54:57 +0100
Thilo Bangert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> there is also the legal argument. it's better to state explicitly
> which versions apply and not have to cleanup the mess, when somebody
> decides to release GPL-2.5.
That's an argument strongly in favour of ranged specs
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 20:06:46 +0100
>
> Christian Faulhammer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > One thing that would need to be decided:
> > >
> > > LICENSE="GPL-2"
> > >
> > > Would that require an = prefix? To simplify things, we could say
> > > that *
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:14:05 -0800
Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Many of the replies keep asking for details -- details that don't
> exist. Apply the concept abstractly: things that need to be
> documented must have documentation available in the appropriate form
> at the time they'r
On 19:10 Tue 27 Nov , Alec Warner wrote:
> No, because this is not a realistic requirement, it's an ideal case.
> People will just commit changes without documentation anyway.
Here's my understanding of what you said: Because people will break
rules and violate standards, we shouldn't have an
On 12:38 Wed 28 Nov , Duncan wrote:
> Donnie, I'm sure you have the scope of what you intend to apply this to
> firmly in your mind, but it's not at all clear from your post what it
> is. Ebuilds? Doesn't make sense with changelog already there and
> generally used (when folks don't forget
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 20:06:46 +0100
Christian Faulhammer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > One thing that would need to be decided:
> >
> > LICENSE="GPL-2"
> >
> > Would that require an = prefix? To simplify things, we could say
> > that *only* the postfix [] form counts for licenses...
>
> To
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Is this something worth pinching for a future EAPI? If we go with the
> postfix [] form for ranged deps, it'd translate into:
> LICENSE="=GPL-2" (or equivalently, LICENSE="GPL[=2]")
> LICENSE="|| ( GPL[>=2] BSD )" (or equivalently, ">=GPL-2")
> LI
Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> To sum up: No undocumented changes.
> Discuss.
Would be nice...what we need is a maniac taking care of the devmanual
and merging it with all other development related information shattered
around (and nag people for more information). But as we aren't able
Rémi Cardona wrote:
> Alec Warner wrote:
>> On 11/27/07, Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> How the recent changes happened to allow USE flag descriptions in
>>> metadata.xml (which I'm not taking any position on now) gave me an idea.
>>> The Linux kernel requires that any needed docume
Ryan Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Looks good here.
Thanks, former fellow Saskatchewanain. I've committed it.
--
Jim Ramsay
Gentoo/Linux Developer (rox,gkrellm)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Next time could you please use a text/plain diff as the attachment.
I thought about doing that, but because of all code movement, the
unified diff was kind of ugly. As I'm sure you'll see on the cvs list,
now that I've committed the thing.
--
Jim Ramsay
"Marijn Schouten (hkBst)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Wed, 28 Nov 2007
12:40:58 +0100:
> Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>> How the recent changes happened to allow USE flag descriptions in
>> metadata.xml (which I'm not taking any position on now) gave me an
>> idea.
Jim Ramsay wrote:
> I know I'm the only one who uses this, but thought it would be prudent
> to post this here before I actually commit it, in case I'm doing
> something obviously wrong, or if you bash maniacs out there can think
> of better ways to do things I've done here.
>
> This is mostly a c
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> How the recent changes happened to allow USE flag descriptions in
> metadata.xml (which I'm not taking any position on now) gave me an idea.
> The Linux kernel requires that any needed documentation accompany all
> changes r
26 matches
Mail list logo
