On Friday 21 December 2007 08:43:43 Richard Freeman wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Please don't comment any further until you understand how this whole
thing works.
CON:
Yet another value to be parsed out of an increasingly-complex filename.
Doesn't look pretty :)
Taste is a matter of
Ciaran McCreesh a écrit :
Developers have to know about EAPIs. It's part of knowing how to write
ebuilds. There's no way around that -- if you're writing ebuilds, you
have to know what you are and aren't allowed to do in those ebuilds.
Then please try to keep things simple :)
The majority of
On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 17:22 +0100, Luca Barbato wrote:
I'm thinking about having them embedded in the comment as first line as
something like
#!/usr/bin/env emerge --eapi $foo
OT: It actually works adding this first line and do chmod +x foo.ebuild:
#! /usr/bin/env ebuild
Then you can do:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 12:48:31 +
Steve Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Point is that your filename format restricts it in exactly the same
manner. So let's just stick with the use cases which /that/ supports,
which can more easily be supported with the original design
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 14:29:25 +0100
Rémi Cardona [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh a écrit :
Developers have to know about EAPIs. It's part of knowing how to
write ebuilds. There's no way around that -- if you're writing
ebuilds, you have to know what you are and aren't allowed to do
On Friday 21 December 2007 05:25:00 Zhang Le wrote:
The question is really simple.
Whether we should have two different place to define EAPI?
We need two places because it wasn't implemented properly in the first place
and we want to retain backwards compatibility for people who use old
On Thursday 20 December 2007 17:14:52 Thomas Pani wrote:
Are we Debian now? A new feature gets implemented (obviously because we
*need* it) and we can make use of it in a *year*?
No, we're not Debian, thank god. I thought the wait 1+ year policy
changed? Again citing Ciaran: That was only
On Friday 21 December 2007 05:46:35 Josh Saddler wrote:
Who cares? Gentoo uses the ebuild/bash-with-shebang format. If you're
trying to shove in something outside of that, that would be a package
manager-specific format. Like XML-stuff (that can't include the shebang
or EAPI=foo at the top)
On Thursday 20 December 2007 20:01:55 Zhang Le wrote:
IMO, we can not have more than two EAPI's simultaneously.
That defeats the whole purpose of having EAPIs. Which is to keep a sane
upgrade path...
--
Bo Andresen
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Thursday 20 December 2007 22:33:25 Joe Peterson wrote:
Technical reasons to avoid the filename are:
2) Having the same info in more than one place is bad (requiring extra
repoman checks and the potential for ambiguity).
As opposed to adding checks to make sure that obtaining the EAPI from
On Dec 20, 2007 10:48 PM, Jan Kundrát [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Santiago M. Mola wrote:
These are potentially ambiguos.
Could you please elaborate a bit about the raw one?
Just that raw could mean more things. Anyway, I have no problem with
that since current packages in the tree use it as
This is a followup that I am now committing qt4-build.eclass with a lot of the
redundant functions for building Qt4 put into it.
The only packages that use/depend on it are currently masked, so feel free to
comment here with things you'd like to see changed in the eclass.
Caleb
--
[EMAIL
Assuming that the file extension must change to prevent current PMs from
trying to parse new format ebuilds (and not require waiting a year or
more), I'd be a lot happier seeing it change *once* to a new fixed
extension, with the requirement that the new ebuilds are required to
contain within them
Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 15:05 Mon 17 Dec , Jim Ramsay (lack) wrote:
lack07/12/17 15:05:57
IUSE=+svg +video
svg already defaults on for all the desktop profiles, so I'm not
really sure what that's gaining you.
Good point, removed '+' there
Time to close bug #145884.
After over a year of waiting (but still way ahead of Debian), wxGTK 2.8 is
finally coming to Gentoo. I'd like to thank everyone for their patience while
we got the wrinkles ironed out.
Many of the problems we've had previously with wxWidgets in Gentoo were due in
Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
On Friday 21 December 2007 03:41:04 Luca Barbato wrote:
* We have to wait a year before we can use it.
We have to wait till we got a new release and I hope it isn't 12months.
And then we have to wait till noone use a version of portage that sources
the ebuild to
Piotr Jaroszyński kirjoitti:
This GLEP proposes usage of EAPI-suffixed file extensions for ebuilds (for
example, foo-1.2.3.ebuild-1).
It seems many people don't like the idea of having it in the filename
but how about having subdirectories for different eapis. This should
even be faster for the
Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Fri, 21 Dec
2007 13:59:22 +:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 08:43:43 -0500
Richard Freeman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Please don't comment any further until you understand how this whole
thing
On Saturday 22 of December 2007 02:41:02 Petteri Räty wrote:
Piotr Jaroszyński kirjoitti:
This GLEP proposes usage of EAPI-suffixed file extensions for ebuilds
(for example, foo-1.2.3.ebuild-1).
It seems many people don't like the idea of having it in the filename
Seems you are counting
Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
On Thursday 20 of December 2007 19:29:22 Zhang Le wrote:
So please make those people understand, so they can comment usefully.
Are we in the elementary school or something? This is really getting
ridiculous.
ietf.org Are they ridiculous?
lu
--
Luca Barbato
Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 17:22 +0100, Luca Barbato wrote:
I'm thinking about having them embedded in the comment as first line as
something like
#!/usr/bin/env emerge --eapi $foo
OT: It actually works adding this first line and do chmod +x foo.ebuild:
#!
Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
On Friday 21 December 2007 03:41:04 Luca Barbato wrote:
* We have to wait a year before we can use it.
We have to wait till we got a new release and I hope it isn't 12months.
And then we have to wait till noone use a version of portage that sources the
ebuild to
Piotr Jaroszy?ski wrote:
On Saturday 22 of December 2007 02:41:02 Petteri Räty wrote:
Piotr Jaroszy?ski kirjoitti:
This GLEP proposes usage of EAPI-suffixed file extensions for ebuilds
(for example, foo-1.2.3.ebuild-1).
It seems many people don't like the idea of having it in the filename
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 13:34:17 +0100
Piotr Jaroszyński [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 20 of December 2007 19:29:22 Zhang Le wrote:
So please make those people understand, so they can comment
usefully.
Are we in the elementary school or something?
Yes, for all intents and purposes,
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 03:41:02 +0200
Petteri Räty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Piotr Jaroszyński kirjoitti:
This GLEP proposes usage of EAPI-suffixed file extensions for
ebuilds (for example, foo-1.2.3.ebuild-1).
It seems many people don't like the idea of having it in the filename
but how
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 06:35:07 +
Steve Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh yeah I forgot, McCreesh thinks they're all idiots[1]
No no. I think some of them are idiots. Get it right.
Funny thing is I think the USE-flag metadata
thing would have breezed through as a GLEP; I don't recall one
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 04:19:45 +0100
Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
On Thursday 20 of December 2007 19:29:22 Zhang Le wrote:
So please make those people understand, so they can comment
usefully.
Are we in the elementary school or something? This is really
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 09:37:27 -0700
Joe Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Assuming that the file extension must change to prevent current PMs
from trying to parse new format ebuilds (and not require waiting a
year or more), I'd be a lot happier seeing it change *once* to a new
fixed extension,
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 00:59:53 +
Steve Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wow that doesn't half sound like nonsense.
Unfortunately, it's not nonsense. It's entirely true. If you don't
understand that then you can't contribute anything useful to the
discussion, so kindly stay out of it.
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 04:24:06 +0100
Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not if we move the rsync path properly so
- older pm sync to a minimal try apt to upgrading portage and nothing
else
- newer sync to the full tree now supporting the newer an better and
honey and milk eapi.
...and
30 matches
Mail list logo
