On Sunday 17 May 2009 06:43:50 Richard Freeman wrote:
Duncan wrote:
So I believe the cost to be quite reasonably managed, after all.
Benchmarks would of course be needed to demonstrate that, but I believe
it worth pursuing.
I thought we had agreed that (1) with GLEP55 you have to source the
Am Sonntag, den 17.05.2009, 01:50 +0100 schrieb Ciaran McCreesh:
On Sun, 17 May 2009 00:35:45 + (UTC)
Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
As for ciaranm's argument that you're restricting changes to the
version string, say allowing -rc where _rc is now required, one-time
restriction of
Ben de Groot wrote:
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
Am Donnerstag, den 14.05.2009, 20:48 +0200 schrieb Thomas Sachau:
This is already done. darkside/idl0r did/do suggest sunrise to all
maintainer-wanted bugs, that meet
some specific criteria.
noticed that, and i'd like to give a thanks guys for doing so :)
But have to say, while hundreds of
Hi,
According to devmanunal [1], DESCRIPTION should be 80 characters max but
according to repoman, DESCRIPTION should be 100 characters max.
I'm confused, who should I believe ? :)
[1] http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/variables/index.html
Thanks,
Mounir
Mounir Lamouri wrote:
Hi,
According to devmanunal [1], DESCRIPTION should be 80 characters max but
according to repoman, DESCRIPTION should be 100 characters max.
I'm confused, who should I believe ? :)
[1] http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/variables/index.html
Though I'm not a
On Sun, 17 May 2009, Mounir Lamouri wrote:
According to devmanunal [1], DESCRIPTION should be 80 characters max
nitpicking
It says less than 80 so 79 is the maximum. ;-)
/nitpicking
but according to repoman, DESCRIPTION should be 100 characters max.
I'm confused, who should I believe ? :)
On Sunday 17 May 2009 08:29:31 Patrick Lauer wrote:
I thought we had agreed that (1) with GLEP55 you have to source the ebuild
anyway (whereas the other proposal allows to just parse it to get at the
EAPI value) and (2) you can cache it sanely so that performance isn't the
issue?
You don't
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
The devmanual also says Where possible, try to keep lines no wider
than 80 positions. which would limit DESCRIPTION to 66 characters.
These are guidelines, not strict rules. Keep it shorter if it's
reasonably possible.
Even guidelines should be consistent. If
On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 12:35:43AM -0400, Richard Freeman wrote:
Ravi Pinjala wrote:
Nick Fortino wrote:
Such a transformation is possible, given the restrictions on arg, as
well as ebuild format.
Isn't this a bit circular? The whole point of wanting to change the
extension is to get rid of
On Sun, 2009-05-17 at 07:40 -0400, Thomas Anderson wrote:
[...]
The difference is that putting the EAPI in the filename has backwards
compatibility because package managers not knowing about this change
won't even look at the those ebuilds. Putting EAPI as the fifth line
completely loses this,
Mounir Lamouri wrote:
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
The devmanual also says Where possible, try to keep lines no wider
than 80 positions. which would limit DESCRIPTION to 66 characters.
These are guidelines, not strict rules. Keep it shorter if it's
reasonably possible.
Even guidelines should
Sven wrote:
Gilles Dartiguelongue eva at gentoo.org writes:
so this wrapper could be installed in a separate eselect sort of
package ?
How exactly can this be done? If a gem creates five executables, would
this mean that this gem comes in six ebuilds?
well given the next answer, it sounds
Alistair Bush wrote:
Is it really necessary to convince the entire community for every GLEP?
I thought that the reason we have the council is so they can make
decisions. You know specialization of decision making. If the council
is going to expect anyone else, besides themselves, to
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2009 02:31:45 +0300
Petteri Räty betelge...@gentoo.org wrote:
On the other hand you also have to make sure you have a stable
portage for a time long enough so mostly everyone has it installed.
Otherwise you could break users systems pretty badly depending
Hello,
I have just updated GLEP 55 [1], hopefully making it a bit clearer.
Just FYI, my order of preference of solutions is:
1. EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (obviously)
2. EAPI in the filename with one-time extension change
3. Easily fetchable EAPI inside the ebuild and one-time extension change
I
On Sun, 17 May 2009 17:56:06 +0200
Piotr Jaroszyński pe...@gentoo.org wrote:
I know gentoo has other problems too, but it's the new and
innovative stuff that makes working on Gentoo fun.
YES !
/loki_val
I would like to suggest to include possibility of using of features of
bash-4.0 (and older versions) in local scope of EAPI=3 ebuilds.
I know that it's slightly late, but this change is very easy to implement
(adjusting RDEPEND of new versions of package managers and updating PMS).
--
Arfrever
2009/5/17 Piotr Jaroszyński pe...@gentoo.org:
I have just updated GLEP 55 [1], hopefully making it a bit clearer.
Thanks a lot Piotr.
Just FYI, my order of preference of solutions is:
1. EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (obviously)
2. EAPI in the filename with one-time extension change
3. Easily
On Sun, 17 May 2009 04:07:18 + (UTC)
Mark Bateman coul...@soon.com wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2009 21:58:10 + (UTC)
Mark Bateman couldbe at soon.com wrote:
The current way of specifying the EAPI in ebuilds is flawed
That is not defining the problem, that is an opening statement.
On Sun, 17 May 2009 18:20:21 +0200
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis arfrever@gmail.com wrote:
I would like to suggest to include possibility of using of features of
bash-4.0 (and older versions) in local scope of EAPI=3 ebuilds.
I know that it's slightly late, but this change is very
2009/5/17 Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis arfrever@gmail.com:
I would like to suggest to include possibility of using of features of
bash-4.0 (and older versions) in local scope of EAPI=3 ebuilds.
This is glep 55 material. I will update it to reflect that.
--
Best Regards,
Piotr
On Sunday 17 May 2009 18:35:29 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Please stop wasting everyone's time.
Yes, please do. Your replies are full of emotional arguments and ad hominem
attacks. If you are unable to keep to the technical aspects of a discussion
you should reconsider answering to every email
2009-05-17 18:37:32 Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a):
On Sun, 17 May 2009 18:20:21 +0200
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis arfrever@gmail.com wrote:
I would like to suggest to include possibility of using of features of
bash-4.0 (and older versions) in local scope of EAPI=3 ebuilds.
I
2009/5/17 Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis arfrever@gmail.com:
2009-05-17 18:37:32 Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a):
On Sun, 17 May 2009 18:20:21 +0200
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis arfrever@gmail.com wrote:
I would like to suggest to include possibility of using of features of
On Sun, 17 May 2009 18:58:58 +0200
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis arfrever@gmail.com wrote:
No good, for two reasons.
First, this is a global scope change
Why do you think that it is a global scope change?
Package managers still need to be able to get the EAPI, even if they
On Fri, 15 May 2009 23:31:25 +0200
Tiziano Müller dev-z...@gentoo.org wrote:
Wrong. For example:
- stuff like docompress may change the content being installed depending
on the package manager
- --disable-static (maybe in a later EAPI) changes content
- slot-dep-operators change the rdepend
On Sun, 17 May 2009, Denis Dupeyron wrote:
2009/5/17 Piotr Jaroszyñski pe...@gentoo.org:
1. EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (obviously)
2. EAPI in the filename with one-time extension change
3. Easily fetchable EAPI inside the ebuild and one-time extension change
I'm strongly against 1 and 2 (no
Arun Raghavan wrote:
On Sat, 2009-05-02 at 18:17 +0200, Mounir Lamouri wrote:
[...]
I think the code can be considered GPL-2 (i will check if there is no
header specifying something else) and for the fonts, I will have to add
2 licenses not in the tree at the moment.
But what to do with
On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 9:36 PM, Peter Alfredsen loki_...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sun, 17 May 2009 17:56:06 +0200
Piotr Jaroszyński pe...@gentoo.org wrote:
I know gentoo has other problems too, but it's the new and
innovative stuff that makes working on Gentoo fun.
YES !
I sincerely hope
Denis Dupeyron wrote:
1. EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (obviously)
2. EAPI in the filename with one-time extension change
3. Easily fetchable EAPI inside the ebuild and one-time extension change
My preference goes to 3 with a .eb extension and EAPI on the first line.
I second this. :)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
On Sun, 17 May 2009, Denis Dupeyron wrote:
2009/5/17 Piotr Jaroszyñski pe...@gentoo.org:
1. EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (obviously)
2. EAPI in the filename with one-time extension change
3. Easily fetchable EAPI inside the
On Sunday 17 May 2009 20:39:26 Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
On Sun, 17 May 2009, Denis Dupeyron wrote:
2009/5/17 Piotr Jaroszyñski pe...@gentoo.org:
1. EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (obviously)
2. EAPI in the filename with one-time extension change
3. Easily
Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
As others have commented, we should probably make this the last comment
line in the header. Any suggestions for a specific identification string
or do we simply use '# EAPI=X' or use a she-bang '#!/.. EAPI=X' ?
Well, if a she-bang, should be the first line.
On Thu, 14 May 2009 03:32:12 +0300
Mart Raudsepp l...@gentoo.org wrote:
Project maintainer-wanted
=
Abstract:
There are currently quite some package requests (over 3000) languishing
on bugzilla waiting for a developer or team to get interested and
package it in the
On Sun, 17 May 2009 17:56:06 +0200
Piotr Jaroszyński pe...@gentoo.org wrote:
Hello,
I have just updated GLEP 55 [1], hopefully making it a bit clearer.
Just FYI, my order of preference of solutions is:
1. EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (obviously)
2. EAPI in the filename with one-time extension
2009/5/17 Ryan Hill dirtye...@gentoo.org:
On Sun, 17 May 2009 17:56:06 +0200
Piotr Jaroszyński pe...@gentoo.org wrote:
Hello,
I have just updated GLEP 55 [1], hopefully making it a bit clearer.
Just FYI, my order of preference of solutions is:
1. EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (obviously)
2.
On Sun, 17 May 2009 12:15:24 -0600
Ryan Hill dirtye...@gentoo.org wrote:
I'd like 2 if we could have multiple same-versioned ebuilds of
different EAPI. 3 is good enough for me.
We couldn't. Allowing multiple equal but different ebuilds gets highly
crazy -- EAPIs aren't orderable, so it's not
Hi,
On 2009/05/17, Piotr Jaroszyński pe...@gentoo.org wrote:
I have just updated GLEP 55 [1], hopefully making it a bit clearer.
In the GLEP, you raises the following argument against the Easily
fetchable EAPI inside the ebuild class of solutions:
Performance decrease comes from the fact
On Sun, 17 May 2009 20:40:37 +0200
Thomas de Grenier de Latour tom...@free.fr wrote:
This argument is wrong imho. Future EAPIs can't be allowed to
introduce backward-incompatible changes to the versions ordering
rules, or they would make the PM behavior ill defined. Or, more
precisely, if
On Sun, 17 May 2009 22:54:38 +0530
Nirbheek Chauhan nirbh...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 9:36 PM, Peter Alfredsen
loki_...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sun, 17 May 2009 17:56:06 +0200
Piotr Jaroszyński pe...@gentoo.org wrote:
I know gentoo has other problems too, but it's the new
On Sunday 17 May 2009, Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
Hello,
I have just updated GLEP 55 [1], hopefully making it a bit clearer.
Just FYI, my order of preference of solutions is:
1. EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (obviously)
2. EAPI in the filename with one-time extension change
3. Easily fetchable EAPI
William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org said:
I was told by the brltty developers that localstatedir should be /var.
I noticed, however, that econf passes --localstatedir=/var/lib to the
configure script. The way around this was to pass the --localstatedir
option to econf.
According to FHS we are
On Sun, 17 May 2009 19:18:14 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sun, 17 May 2009 12:15:24 -0600
Ryan Hill dirtye...@gentoo.org wrote:
I'd like 2 if we could have multiple same-versioned ebuilds of
different EAPI. 3 is good enough for me.
We couldn't. Allowing
Am Sonntag, den 17.05.2009, 11:11 -0600 schrieb Ryan Hill:
On Fri, 15 May 2009 23:31:25 +0200
Tiziano Müller dev-z...@gentoo.org wrote:
Wrong. For example:
- stuff like docompress may change the content being installed depending
on the package manager
- --disable-static (maybe in a
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
2009-05-17 18:37:32 Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a):
On Sun, 17 May 2009 18:20:21 +0200
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis arfrever@gmail.com wrote:
I would like to suggest to include possibility of using of features of
bash-4.0 (and older versions)
Thomas Anderson wrote:
- Vote on GLEP 54
This vote was called for by dertobi123. The vote was on whether to
approve GLEP 54 conditional on whether GLEP 55 is passed. The reason
for this is that GLEP 54 is unimplementable without the problems
mentioned in GLEP 55
On Sun, 17 May 2009 21:22:57 +0200
Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote:
Why do you think that it is a global scope change?
Because he wants to push GLEP 55.
Ben, please stop that and apologise for your behaviour. It's already
been explained why changing bash versions is a global scope
Just a heads up that I wrote a more detailed description of the
peformance hit that EAPI in the ebuild introduces.
Might come up with some numbers later too.
[1] -
http://dev.gentoo.org/~peper/glep-0055.html#easily-fetchable-eapi-inside-the-ebuild
--
Best Regards,
Piotr Jaroszyński
2009/5/17 Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org:
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
2009-05-17 18:37:32 Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a):
On Sun, 17 May 2009 18:20:21 +0200
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis arfrever@gmail.com wrote:
I would like to suggest to include possibility of using of
2009-05-17 20:57:25 Robert Buchholz napisał(a):
On Sunday 17 May 2009, Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
Hello,
I have just updated GLEP 55 [1], hopefully making it a bit clearer.
Just FYI, my order of preference of solutions is:
1. EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (obviously)
2. EAPI in the filename
On Sun, 17 May 2009 13:24:27 -0600
Joe Peterson lava...@gentoo.org wrote:
Thomas Anderson wrote:
- Vote on GLEP 54
This vote was called for by dertobi123. The vote was on
whether to approve GLEP 54 conditional on whether GLEP 55 is
passed. The reason for this is that GLEP 54 is
2009/5/17 Robert Buchholz r...@gentoo.org:
On Sunday 17 May 2009, Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
Hello,
I have just updated GLEP 55 [1], hopefully making it a bit clearer.
Just FYI, my order of preference of solutions is:
1. EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (obviously)
2. EAPI in the filename with
Ravi Pinjala wrote:
Instead of changing rules for existing ebuilds, then, why not formalize
some guidelines for non-ebuild-compatible packages in the tree, separate
from EAPIs? Allowing new package formats is the next logical
generalization after considering new and incompatible ebuild
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 02:57:47PM -0400, Mark Loeser wrote:
According to FHS we are doing it right:
http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#VARLIBVARIABLESTATEINFORMATION
I guess what I would really like to know is...why does it matter? If
On Sun, 17 May 2009, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
History suggests that if it goes up for debate again, no decision
will ever be reached.
If we simply have to decide between alternatives scm and live,
then I don't see what should be so complicated about reaching a
decision.
GLEP 54 doesn't really
On 2009/05/17, Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
Let's take a very simple
example:
- eapi X says _p is equal to _p0
- eapi Y says _p is greater than any _pN
-- of foo-1_p1 with EAPI=X and foo-1_p with EAPI=Y, what is
the best version?
You don't define
Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
2009/5/17 Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org:
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
2009-05-17 18:37:32 Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a):
On Sun, 17 May 2009 18:20:21 +0200
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis arfrever@gmail.com wrote:
I would like to suggest to
Joe Peterson wrote:
I have not seen much discussion lately regarding the choice of the string,
scm
in this GLEP. I asked the author today on IRC, and he said he doesn't have a
particularly strong reason for scm beyond historical reasons.
Since we are stuck with the string once it is
On Sun, 17 May 2009, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
About a million years ago, we were going to move all the SCM
packages into their own category (but it never happened, because
port001's script didn't work). There was a huge bikeshed debate
about whether to use vcs, rcs, scm or something else. In
On 2009/05/17, Thomas Anderson gentoofa...@gentoo.org wrote:
- Vote on GLEP 54
This vote was called for by dertobi123. The vote was on
whether to approve GLEP 54 conditional on whether GLEP 55 is passed.
The reason for this is that GLEP 54 is unimplementable without the
problems
On Sun, 17 May 2009 21:57:40 +0200
Thomas de Grenier de Latour tom...@free.fr wrote:
On 2009/05/17, Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
You don't define it quite like that. You define it by mapping EAPI X
_p onto super-EAPI _p0, and EAPI Y _p onto super_EAPI _pINFINITY.
Ryan Hill dirtye...@gentoo.org posted
2009051752.133c7...@halo.dirtyepic.sk.ca, excerpted below, on Sun, 17
May 2009 11:11:52 -0600:
Do we want to document the following? (do we have already?) - When is
it allowed to use an EAPI in the tree (given as offset to the release
of portage
On Sun, 17 May 2009 20:40:41 + (UTC)
Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
(See EAPI-3, now preapproved, but conditional on feature
implementation, with removal of some feature or other possible before
final approval if not all PMs support it in a timely manner.)
EAPI 3's approval is based
On Sun, 17 May 2009 21:03:46 +0200
Tiziano Müller dev-z...@gentoo.org wrote:
Am Sonntag, den 17.05.2009, 11:11 -0600 schrieb Ryan Hill:
On Fri, 15 May 2009 23:31:25 +0200
Tiziano Müller dev-z...@gentoo.org wrote:
Wrong. For example:
- stuff like docompress may change the content
2009-05-17 22:51:50 Ryan Hill napisał(a):
On Sun, 17 May 2009 21:03:46 +0200
Tiziano Müller dev-z...@gentoo.org wrote:
So, unless you're doing a pkgmove
it's a dangerous thing since the PM can't reliably track reverse deps
when doing uninstalls since it has to use the vdb entry for that,
2009/5/17 Thomas de Grenier de Latour tom...@free.fr:
On 2009/05/17, Thomas Anderson gentoofa...@gentoo.org wrote:
- Vote on GLEP 54
This vote was called for by dertobi123. The vote was on
whether to approve GLEP 54 conditional on whether GLEP 55 is passed.
The reason for this is
On Sunday 17 May 2009 15:55:55 William Hubbs wrote:
On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 02:57:47PM -0400, Mark Loeser wrote:
According to FHS we are doing it right:
http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#VARLIBVARIABLESTATEINFORMATI
ON
I guess what I would really like to know is...why does it
On Sun, 17 May 2009 20:40:41 + (UTC)
Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
Ryan Hill dirtye...@gentoo.org posted
2009051752.133c7...@halo.dirtyepic.sk.ca, excerpted below, on Sun, 17
May 2009 11:11:52 -0600:
Do we want to document the following? (do we have already?) - When is
it
Let me first say that I think this revision is much improved, and makes
it clearer what we are talking about.
As to the stated problem(s):
1. Incompatible change of inherit (e.g. make it look in the package dir
too)
A case would need to be made, in my opinion, as to why we would wish to
allow
On Sun, 17 May 2009 23:00:21 +0200
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis arfrever@gmail.com wrote:
2009-05-17 22:51:50 Ryan Hill napisał(a):
On Sun, 17 May 2009 21:03:46 +0200
Tiziano Müller dev-z...@gentoo.org wrote:
So, unless you're doing a pkgmove
it's a dangerous thing since the
On Sun, 17 May 2009 23:17:57 +0200
Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote:
1. Incompatible change of inherit (e.g. make it look in the package
dir too)
A case would need to be made, in my opinion, as to why we would wish
to allow this in the first place. The current inherit behavior with
On Sun, 17 May 2009 15:19:17 -0600
Ryan Hill dirtye...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sun, 17 May 2009 23:00:21 +0200
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis arfrever@gmail.com wrote:
2009-05-17 22:51:50 Ryan Hill napisał(a):
On Sun, 17 May 2009 21:03:46 +0200
Tiziano Müller dev-z...@gentoo.org
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
3. Extend versioning rules in an EAPI - for example, addition of the
scm suffix - GLEP54 [1] or allowing more sensible version formats like
1-rc1, 1-alpha etc. to match upstream more closely.
Apart from GLEP54, I believe our versioning scheme works reasonably
well. I
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 17 May 2009 23:17:57 +0200
Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote:
1. Incompatible change of inherit (e.g. make it look in the package
dir too)
A case would need to be made, in my opinion, as to why we would wish
to allow this in the first place. The current
On Mon, 18 May 2009 00:08:05 +0200
Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote:
There are already horrible hacks in the tree to get per-package
'eclasses'. That's a clear sign there's something lacking.
I haven't come across any horrible hacks, that I'm aware of, but of
course my interest is only
2009/5/17 Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 17 May 2009 23:17:57 +0200
Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote:
2. Add new global scope functions in any sane way
This is a valid use case, as seen by the eapi-2 update. But the way
this is currently handled by portage
On Sun, 17 May 2009, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Upstreams don't standardise either way on - vs _, so there's no
reason Gentoo should.
Upstreams use all sorts of strange versioning schemes. Here is a small
collection:
1_14 - 1.14(app-emacs/limit)
1.0pre4- 1.0_pre4
On Mon, 18 May 2009 00:54:04 +0200
Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
Upstreams don't standardise either way on - vs _, so there's no
reason Gentoo should.
Upstreams use all sorts of strange versioning schemes. Here is a small
collection:
And we can handle a lot more of them sensibly
On Sun, 17 May 2009, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
1_14 - 1.14(app-emacs/limit)
12B5 - 12.2.5 (dev-lang/erlang)
These we should handle.
How? Both limit-1_14 and erlang-12B5 are valid package names,
so how do you determine where PN ends and where PV starts?
Ulrich
On Mon, 18 May 2009 01:11:45 +0200
Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sun, 17 May 2009, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
1_14 - 1.14(app-emacs/limit)
12B5 - 12.2.5 (dev-lang/erlang)
These we should handle.
How? Both limit-1_14 and erlang-12B5 are valid
On Mon, 18 May 2009, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
How? Both limit-1_14 and erlang-12B5 are valid package names,
so how do you determine where PN ends and where PV starts?
By the time the things we need to get this done end up being
accepted, we'll probably be using ranged deps, so it won't be an
On Mon, 18 May 2009 01:30:26 +0200
Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Mon, 18 May 2009, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
How? Both limit-1_14 and erlang-12B5 are valid package names,
so how do you determine where PN ends and where PV starts?
By the time the things we need to get this done
On Mon, 18 May 2009, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
In fact, with GLEP 54 we have the problem already now.
P=foo-1a-scm could mean both of the following:
PN=foo PV=1a-scm
PN=foo-1a PV=scm
We've had that problem ever since -100dpi things had to be made legal,
But so far you can split P into
On Mon, 18 May 2009 01:43:43 +0200
Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
Trouble starts if hyphens in PV are allowed.
You mean like -r0?
It's easily solved by a careful definition, in any case, just the same
way that there's already a careful definition full of weaselling out to
allow other
The attached list notes all of the packages that were added or removed
from the tree, for the week ending 2009-05-17 23h59 UTC.
Removals:
net-www/adobesvg2009-05-12 15:12:45 ulm
dev-tcltk/tkdiff2009-05-12 19:22:52 mescalinum
media-sound/ermixer
if you've got something that needs to block glibc-2.9 going stable, now is the
time to make it block Bug 270243. with us finally using glibc-2.8 and
gcc-4.3.2, hopefully these core packages wont lag for so long.
clicky link: http://bugs.gentoo.org/270243
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This
On Mon, 18 May 2009, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Trouble starts if hyphens in PV are allowed.
You mean like -r0?
The revision is not part of PV. And it's easily split off, since the
string -rdigits cannot occur elsewhere in the package version.
It's easily solved by a careful definition, in any
88 matches
Mail list logo