On wto, 2017-05-30 at 20:46 +0200, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Tue, 30 May 2017 20:11:38 +0200
> Michał Górny wrote:
> [...]
> > > > Of course, we could just validate all the possible cases via
> > > > repoman, and reject the ebuild if there's at least one conflict
> > > > between them. Not sure ho
My fellow developers,
I want to give fair warning that libmysqlclient_r.so will be
disappearing with MariaDB 10.2 and MySQL 5.7.
For the past few versions, the functionality that was in
libmysqlclient_r was merged into libmysqlclient. For a few years now,
upstream kept a compatibility symlink in
On Tue, 30 May 2017 09:56:07 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> First problem: encoding "don't change this from its current setting
> unless you have a reason to do so" is an utter pain in SAT.
I get the impression that this is harder to solve in Gentoo than it has
to be, because my impression of po
On Tue, 30 May 2017 20:11:38 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
[...]
> > > Of course, we could just validate all the possible cases via
> > > repoman, and reject the ebuild if there's at least one conflict
> > > between them. Not sure how to express that properly in the spec
> > > though. Not sure how it
On wto, 2017-05-30 at 17:33 +0200, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Tue, 30 May 2017 16:33:32 +0200
> Michał Górny wrote:
>
> [...]
> > The problem is: how far is that going to work? That's what I would
> > like to try determining in the first place.
> >
> > I'm most worried about complex constructs l
On Tue, 30 May 2017 16:33:32 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
[...]
> The problem is: how far is that going to work? That's what I would
> like to try determining in the first place.
>
> I'm most worried about complex constructs like:
>
> foo? ( bar ) ^^ ( baz bar )
The order in which it is written
On wto, 2017-05-30 at 14:00 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, 30 May 2017, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > The way I see it, this boils down to spec'ing something that
> > guarantees there's a unique solution given an input. The solution
> > does not have to be good or bad (we don't have a
On wto, 2017-05-30 at 11:34 +0200, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> Sidenote: I just realized '|| ( a b c )' with left-most preference
> > > might be better since we are not dealing with binary variables but
> > > ternary ones (user disabled, user enabled, unspecified). 'USE="" ||
> > > ( a b c )' should ev
> On Tue, 30 May 2017, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> The way I see it, this boils down to spec'ing something that
> guarantees there's a unique solution given an input. The solution
> does not have to be good or bad (we don't have a good metric on that
> anyway), it just has to be deterministic so t
On Tue, 30 May 2017 10:29:48 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> That's why I'm sending this to the mailing list as a RFC, not a
> proposal to vote on. It solves a defined set of problems, and gives
> other chance to improve it and turn it into a complete solution. It's
> not like it's going anywhere befo
On Tue, 30 May 2017 09:56:07 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 30 May 2017 10:46:54 +0200
> Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 May 2017 09:22:45 +0100
> > Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > On Tue, 30 May 2017 09:42:45 +0200
> > > Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > > > Oh crap, this requires to
On Tue, 30 May 2017 10:46:54 +0200
Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Tue, 30 May 2017 09:22:45 +0100
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 May 2017 09:42:45 +0200
> > Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > > Oh crap, this requires to solve SAT.
> >
> > The main problem would not be solving SAT, in this cas
On Tue, 30 May 2017 09:22:45 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 30 May 2017 09:42:45 +0200
> Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > Oh crap, this requires to solve SAT.
>
> The main problem would not be solving SAT, in this case. The problem
> is providing the right answer when not enough information
On wto, 2017-05-30 at 09:42 +0200, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Mon, 29 May 2017 23:23:55 +0200
> Michał Górny wrote:
>
> > On pon, 2017-05-29 at 20:00 +0200, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > > On Mon, 29 May 2017 17:33:13 +0200
> > > Michał Górny wrote:
>
> [...]
> > > > It can also be used with multi-
On Tue, 30 May 2017 09:42:45 +0200
Alexis Ballier wrote:
> Oh crap, this requires to solve SAT.
The main problem would not be solving SAT, in this case. The problem is
providing the right answer when not enough information is given.
Spitting out a resolution which satisfies every dependency isn't
On May 30, 2017 10:09:14 AM GMT+02:00, Kristian Fiskerstrand
wrote:
>On 05/30/2017 12:05 AM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>> -- So all packages that a) use gcc-4 or gcc-5, and b) do not in the
>ebuild
>> "manually" add something like -std=c++11 or -std=c++14 or -std=gnu14
>will fail
>> to *build*.
On Tue, 30 May 2017 10:05:41 +0200
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 May 2017, Alexis Ballier wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 30 May 2017 00:01:16 +0200
> > Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
> >> Also, can we find a better name? Sorry for the bikeshedding at this
> >> early stage, but I believe that ENF
On 05/30/2017 12:05 AM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> -- So all packages that a) use gcc-4 or gcc-5, and b) do not in the ebuild
> "manually" add something like -std=c++11 or -std=c++14 or -std=gnu14 will
> fail
> to *build*.
This isn't really different from [Qt 5.7 requirements] and is
fundament
> On Tue, 30 May 2017, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Tue, 30 May 2017 00:01:16 +0200
> Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> Also, can we find a better name? Sorry for the bikeshedding at this
>> early stage, but I believe that ENFORCED_USE can be easily confused
>> with use.force in profiles. MAPPED_USE? U
On Tue, 30 May 2017 00:01:16 +0200
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Mon, 29 May 2017, Michał Górny wrote:
> Also, can we find a better name? Sorry for the bikeshedding at this
> early stage, but I believe that ENFORCED_USE can be easily confused
> with use.force in profiles. MAPPED_USE? USE_MA
On Mon, 29 May 2017 23:23:55 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> On pon, 2017-05-29 at 20:00 +0200, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > On Mon, 29 May 2017 17:33:13 +0200
> > Michał Górny wrote:
[...]
> > > It can also be used with multi-flag ??, ^^ and || constraints,
> > > i.e.:
> > >
> > > - ?? means that at
21 matches
Mail list logo
