On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Ralph Sennhauser wrote:
> Adopting a package to distribution specifics is perfectly valid. But
> here it's about adding functionality to a package that wasn't there
> before. The usual reaction in such situations is to tell users to bug
> upstream about it first.
On Fri, 10 May 2013 06:09:32 -0400
Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 3:45 AM, Ralph Sennhauser
> wrote:
> > The other thing is those unit files really should come from upstream
> > and other distributions urge their developers to work with upstream
> > [1] Therefore I'd require an up
On Sat, 11 May 2013 11:51:39 -0400
Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 5:30 AM, Michał Górny
> wrote:
> > Fixed naming the proper default sub-phase and declaring 'edefault'
> > in python_prepare_all().
> > ---
>
> I think I prefer to explicitly name the function I want to call, so I
>
On Sat, 11 May 2013 11:51:39 -0400
Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 5:30 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > Fixed naming the proper default sub-phase and declaring 'edefault'
> > in python_prepare_all().
> > ---
>
> I think I prefer to explicitly name the function I want to call, so I
> d
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 5:30 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Fixed naming the proper default sub-phase and declaring 'edefault'
> in python_prepare_all().
> ---
I think I prefer to explicitly name the function I want to call, so I
don't really see any great benefit here. I'm not strongly opposed to
it,
Fixed naming the proper default sub-phase and declaring 'edefault'
in python_prepare_all().
---
gx86/eclass/distutils-r1.eclass | 22 ++
1 file changed, 22 insertions(+)
diff --git a/gx86/eclass/distutils-r1.eclass b/gx86/eclass/distutils-r1.eclass
index 47b5b97..e5c2a3a 10064
