Is it legal for ebuilds to call has_version and friends in parallel? Is
it legal for ebuilds to call has_version and friends after the ebuild
process has terminated? Discuss.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
The attached list notes all of the packages that were added or removed
from the tree, for the week ending 2007-12-30 23h59 UTC.
Removals:
dev-libs/libcpml2007-12-27 11:56:48 armin76
dev-libs/libcxml2007-12-27 11:56:50 armin76
dev-lang/ccc
This is a very very rough draft/question about how we should move
forward with USE flag documentation and specification. The entire idea
of a single USE flag having different meanings will need to be revisted
later. I just want to get an idea of how we can document these
different meanings.
Ciaran McCreesh kirjoitti:
Is it legal for ebuilds to call has_version and friends in parallel? Is
it legal for ebuilds to call has_version and friends after the ebuild
process has terminated? Discuss.
Do you/anybody know if they are used in parallel in the tree at the moment?
Regards,
On 12/30/07, Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is it legal for ebuilds to call has_version and friends in parallel? Is
it legal for ebuilds to call has_version and friends after the ebuild
process has terminated? Discuss.
If the pm implements read/write locking on the underlying
Luca Barbato wrote:
Some items I have in wishlist
- LRDEPEND link runtime dep (I need to link against that in order to run)
I heartily concur with a link dependency, since it's such a fundamental
relationship between packages: if A links to B we need to recompile A when
the ABI for B
