Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 14 May 2009 20:06:51 +0200
Patrick Lauer wrote:
"You need to know the EAPI to parse the ebuild to find the EAPI"
Obviously that's not true, because somehow we manage at the moment.
And if one does a small restriction (which doesn't restrict current
behaviour becau
libusb-1 is in the tree now.
This means that you get to go and test all your apps that use it.
There's a list further down of all packages and all ebuilds.
Every one of these needs to be tested, and amended in one of two ways:
- Does work with libusb-compat:
1. Change your [R]DEPEND to virtual
On Thursday 14 May 2009 23:53:37 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 14 May 2009 16:49:09 -0500
>
> William Hubbs wrote:
> > The second solution seems to be the better one because it does not go
> > against standards. For example, we see extentions like .c, .py and
> > .pl, instead of .c-43, .py-25
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 14 May 2009 16:49:09 -0500
William Hubbs wrote:
> The second solution seems to be the better one because it does not go
> against standards. For example, we see extentions like .c, .py and
> .pl, instead of .c-43, .py-25 and .pl-58. There ar
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
I realize that I'm asking this very late in the discussion, so please
bear with me if it has been hashed before.
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 11:16:23PM +0200, Peter Alfredsen wrote:
> We need a mechanism to be able to use newer bash-features in ebuil
On Thu, 14 May 2009 22:03:22 +0200
Ben de Groot wrote:
> I concur that speaking for myself, I don't understand the issue. And
> it looks like many others don't either. So if anyone wants to promote
> this GLEP, their job is clear: make people understand what the issue
> is here, and convince them
Patrick Lauer wrote:
> For quite some time (over a year, actually) we've been discussing the
> mysterious and often misunderstood GLEP55.
> [http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0055.html]
>
> The proposed solution to a problem that is never refined,
This, in my opinion, is the crux of the m
On Thu, 14 May 2009 21:24:14 +0200
Patrick Lauer wrote:
> > "so with glep55 caching it is actually slower!"
> >
> > There's no possible way that can make sense. Whatever he's claiming
> > by that is obviously nonsense.
>
> Ah. I was not precise enough.
>
> Let me rephrase it in less ambiguous te
On Thu, 14 May 2009 14:15:28 -0500
Jeremy Olexa wrote:
> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 2:06 PM, David Leverton
> wrote:
> > yourself, "shell-like". "printf -v EAPI 1" is perfectly valid
> > shell (at least if we decide to allow bash 3.1 features), and has
> > the same effect
>
> To stir things up:
>
On Thursday 14 May 2009 21:20:18 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 14 May 2009 13:17:24 -0600
>
> RB wrote:
> > On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 13:11, Ciaran McCreesh
> >
> > wrote:
> > > Please explain why you claimed GLEP 55 makes things slower. Until
> > > you answer that, it's hard to take you for any
On Thu, 14 May 2009 13:17:24 -0600
RB wrote:
> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 13:11, Ciaran McCreesh
> wrote:
> > Please explain why you claimed GLEP 55 makes things slower. Until
> > you answer that, it's hard to take you for anything other than a
> > troll.
>
> Hell, I'll explain. Read paragraph 8 a
On Thu, 14 May 2009 21:09:58 +0200
Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
> Dne čtvrtek 14 Květen 2009 20:39:07 Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
> > Where on earth are you getting the idea that GLEP 55 makes things
> > slower? The only difference to the code with GLEP 55 is in checking
> > file extensions against a sligh
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 13:11, Ciaran McCreesh
wrote:
> Please explain why you claimed GLEP 55 makes things slower. Until you
> answer that, it's hard to take you for anything other than a troll.
Hell, I'll explain. Read paragraph 8 again. Slowly. Read it a
second time, since you obviously did
Patrick Lauer wrote:
On Thursday 14 May 2009 20:39:07 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 14 May 2009 20:06:51 +0200
Patrick Lauer wrote:
Let EAPI be defined as (the part behind the = of) the first line of
the ebuild starting with EAPI=
Uh, so horribly utterly and obviously wrong.
inherit fo
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 2:06 PM, David Leverton
wrote:
> yourself, "shell-like". "printf -v EAPI 1" is perfectly valid shell (at
> least if we decide to allow bash 3.1 features), and has the same effect
To stir things up:
Who decides this? There are more and more bash-3.1 features in the
tree a
On Thu, 14 May 2009 21:05:52 +0200
Patrick Lauer wrote:
> > Where on earth are you getting the idea that GLEP 55 makes things
> > slower? The only difference to the code with GLEP 55 is in checking
> > file extensions against a slightly larger set of strings, which is
> > nowhere near a measurable
Dne čtvrtek 14 Květen 2009 20:39:07 Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
> Where on earth are you getting the idea that GLEP 55 makes things
> slower? The only difference to the code with GLEP 55 is in checking
> file extensions against a slightly larger set of strings, which is
> nowhere near a measurable i
On Thursday 14 May 2009 19:06:51 Patrick Lauer wrote:
> For quite some time (over a year, actually) we've been discussing the
> mysterious and often misunderstood GLEP55.
> [http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0055.html]
We agree on the latter adjective, if nothing else.
> The proposed soluti
On Thursday 14 May 2009 20:39:07 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 14 May 2009 20:06:51 +0200
>
> Patrick Lauer wrote:
> > "You need to know the EAPI to parse the ebuild to find the EAPI"
> > Obviously that's not true, because somehow we manage at the moment.
> > And if one does a small restriction
Roy Bamford schrieb:
> We could use user contributed ebuilds attached to bugs as a way to
> bring Sunrise to the contributors attention just by posting a comment
> to the bug. If the contributor follows up, we get another user
> maintained ebuild in Sunrise, which is good, as the current develop
On Thu, 14 May 2009 20:06:51 +0200
Patrick Lauer wrote:
> "You need to know the EAPI to parse the ebuild to find the EAPI"
> Obviously that's not true, because somehow we manage at the moment.
> And if one does a small restriction (which doesn't restrict current
> behaviour because all in-tree ebu
On Thu, 14 May 2009 18:34:29 + (UTC)
Sven wrote:
> Duncan <1i5t5.duncan cox.net> writes:
> > FWIW, that'd not be a portage issue per se, but an EAPI issue,
> > since it
>
> I see, very interesting! Sounds like a lengthy process, but never
> mind. Do you know where EAPI changes are discussed?
Duncan <1i5t5.duncan cox.net> writes:
> FWIW, that'd not be a portage issue per se, but an EAPI issue, since it
I see, very interesting! Sounds like a lengthy process, but never mind. Do you
know where EAPI changes are discussed? (Google and the Bugtracker didn't yield a
useful reply.)
Cheers, -
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2009.05.14 01:32, Mart Raudsepp wrote:
> Hello,
>
[snip]
> Project maintainer-wanted
> =
>
> Abstract:
> There are currently quite some package requests (over 3000)
> languishing
> on bugzilla waiting for a developer or te
For quite some time (over a year, actually) we've been discussing the
mysterious and often misunderstood GLEP55.
[http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0055.html]
The proposed solution to a problem that is never refined, in short, is to add
the EAPI into the ebuild filename "to make things easi
Mart Raudsepp schrieb:
>> If people are a) too lazy to contribute to sunrise, b) don't
>> know about sunrise, or c) don't know enough about ebuilds to contribute
>> to sunrise, then we need to fix[1] that.
>
> Sure, the sunrise project can do all of that. That doesn't make the
> packages availab
Mart Raudsepp wrote:
Liking and using the package yourself shouldn't be a prerequisite for a
package getting to be in-tree by the maintainer-wanted team.
How about actually maintaining the package?
For example, user contributes ebuild for foo-1.0. I don't use it or
like it, but I go ahead
AllenJB wrote:
All that's going to happen is Gentoo will have many many buggy and out
of date packages in the MAIN TREE. Exactly where they shouldn't be. You
claim quality won't be sacrificed, but I simply can't see this without
any attempt to solve the manpower issues first.
Isn't the purp
On N, 2009-05-14 at 14:02 +0300, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On Thursday 14 May 2009 03:32:12 Mart Raudsepp wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I have had this project in my mind for a while, so it's about time to
> >[..]
> I think there is no need for this project. Developers can always browse
> bugzilla and
To potential responders to this message:
Nothing to see here, please move along.
Everytime you reply to this message, a kitten is deleted.
2009/5/14 Alexander Færøy :
> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 07:54:35AM +0200, Patrick Lauer wrote:
>> Yes, one did. Some people just need a good excuse to leave :)
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 07:54:35AM +0200, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> Yes, one did. Some people just need a good excuse to leave :)
You lost the best laptop developer Gentoo had ever had..
--
Alexander Færøy
http://dev.exherbo.org/~ahf/
pgpscOKrRfN37.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Thursday 14 May 2009 03:32:12 Mart Raudsepp wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have had this project in my mind for a while, so it's about time to
>[..]
I think there is no need for this project. Developers can always browse
bugzilla and pick every 'maintainer-wanted' ebuild they like. At least this
is wh
On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 20:47 -0500, Jeremy Olexa wrote:
> Mart Raudsepp wrote:
> > Hello,
Hey,
> > I have had this project in my mind for a while, so it's about time to
> > get it out there, as to see if feedback finds it a good one - and if
> > that is so, if there are people who want to make it
Hi,
Jeremy Olexa :
> I don't see any reason to create a team that duplicates the sunrise
> work.
More power to Sunrise, yes. Sunrise is a great project, although I
don't dedicate too much time for it nowadays.
V-Li
--
Christian Faulhammer, Gentoo Lisp project
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/l
Hi,
Nikos Chantziaras :
> > Btw: Is there a typo in the eclass? Shouldn't it be "Project .pro
> > file "PREFIX=/usr" does not exist" instead of "Project .pro file
> > "PREFIX=/usr" does not exists"
>
> I just checked qt3.eclass and indeed its a typo in there.
Which is now gone.
V-Li
--
Chris
Hi,
Nikos Chantziaras :
> Daniel Pielmeier wrote:
> > Also this question is not appropriate for this list. The
> > gentoo-devhelp mailing-list or #gentoo-dev-help on IRC are better
> > places for this kind of questions.
>
> My posts to gmane.linux.gentoo.devhelp don't seem to get through.
> Does
Nikos Chantziaras posted gugfo5$i9...@ger.gmane.org,
excerpted below, on Thu, 14 May 2009 10:03:43 +0300:
> I worked around it by subscribing manually to that list (using the
> "-nomail" list option). After that, postings from GMane get through.
Thanks. (Further reply/explanation offlist.)
-
Duncan wrote:
Nikos Chantziaras posted gufm71$un...@ger.gmane.org,
excerpted below, on Thu, 14 May 2009 02:47:55 +0300:
My posts to gmane.linux.gentoo.devhelp don't seem to get through. Does
someone know if something is wrong with the list's subscription on
GMane? All other GMane Gentoo lis
38 matches
Mail list logo
