ce out
> linking so as to migrate PaX flags between ELF objects.
VDB is completely non-standard, undocumented, and hard to read
correctly. There's no point in having information if you aren't allowed
to use it.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
ng too vague. We should also consider
> carefully the list of items we want cached although we could always
> update this list later.
This isn't a specification...
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 00:37:48 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> What do you think?
Kill it! With fire! And blood!
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sat, 09 Aug 2014 11:12:46 -0400
Chris Reffett wrote:
> Then write it. Portage's source is available to anyone.
It's quicker to start from scratch than to try to add things to
Portage's source...
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Fri, 8 Aug 2014 17:12:27 +0400
Igor wrote:
> Is there any option in emerge to pull MINIMUM packages to
> get the result - install the application you need, leaving everything
> else AS IS untouched and stable?
cave resolve --lazy :P
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Descrip
ce a decent error message, given the
limited information that ebuilds supply and the unnecessary
pseudocleverness they employ to do it.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, 28 Jul 2014 23:23:04 -0500
James Potts wrote:
> Paludis has an elegant solution for this situation (-F/-A), but afaik
> portage doesn't.
I'd not call -F / -A elegant... It's a nasty trick that we only added
because || dependencies are such a pain. They shouldn't
On Mon, 28 Jul 2014 10:30:15 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 26/07/14 11:22 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> >
> > Let's start with the easiest issue: please point us all to the
> > place where you "proved" how dynamic dependencies still work in the
> >
how it can work both in the
case you describe, and in the case where an overlay has a substantially
different ebuild for the same package.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 22:51:13 +0200
Peter Stuge wrote:
> To me it seems like a simple data model bug that vdb does not get
> updated to reflect the new situation after step 2 above.
Rewriting VDB won't help if the user doesn't sync at the right time.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 19:16:58 +0200
Peter Stuge wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Peter Stuge wrote:
> > > Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > > Rich Freeman wrote:
> > > > > What would you do away with? Being able to virtualize
> > > > >
On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 19:02:05 +0200
Peter Stuge wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Rich Freeman wrote:
> > > What would you do away with? Being able to virtualize packages
> > > without recompiling everything that depends on them?
> >
> > Well that
On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 11:09:05 -0400
Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
> wrote:
> > On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 16:56:17 +0200
> > ""Paweł Hajdan, Jr."" wrote:
> >> It seems really tricky to correctly reason about de
he complexity is
self-inflicted.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
nd removing ebuilds.
And this is the problem: you need to think carefully about dynamic
dependencies and fully understand the problem. Superficial testing won't
give you the whole story.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 18:36:27 + (UTC)
Martin Vaeth wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> >> > * Overlays
> >> Not an issue: Exactly the information of that ebuild
> >> which *would* be used if you reemerge contains
> >> the relevant data.
> >
>
On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 12:36:45 -0400
Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 12:02 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
> wrote:
> > On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 15:59:58 + (UTC)
> > Martin Vaeth wrote:
> >> > And what if the match for :=3D is
> >> > incompatible with
On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 12:28:27 -0400
Rich Freeman wrote:
> Sure, it might cause a "few" unnecessary ebuilds but whether your
> package manager attempts to support dynamic deps or not you'll
> certainly have an up-to-date dependency cache.
VDB is not a cache. This is importa
On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 16:05:58 + (UTC)
Martin Vaeth wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Your solution fails spectacularly in the following ways:
> >
> > * Ebuild removal
>
> Already discussed as to fail with static deps, too.
Uh, static dependencies don'
> This is simple: The dependency is not satisfied.
That isn't simple at all... It means you can't uninstall or upgrade the
package...
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
be met when they aren't.
So in summary, dynamic dependencies are broken, and static dependencies
are correct, and the only issue you think you have with static
dependencies isn't a problem specific to static dependencies and isn't
reliably solved by dynamic dependencies.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
tuations with any approach.
Your solution fails spectacularly in the following ways:
* Ebuild removal
* Overlays
* Introduction of := dependencies
* pkg_*rm
Which brings us back to the "all people with enough knowledge
already know that this is technically impossible" thing...
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 15:11:36 + (UTC)
Martin Vaeth wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Martin Vaeth wrote:
> > The problems are of a different kind. Static dependencies don't do
> > something that you want them to do. Dynamic dependencies are
> > outrigh
e spec.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
been explained. However, you continue to ignore them, and you
continue to refuse to read what PMS actually says on the matter.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
choose the one
> with unnecessary rebuilds?
We are picking the *correct* solution, not the one that sometimes hides
an occasional inconvenience (but unreliably) at the expense of being
utterly broken.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 14:33:38 + (UTC)
Martin Vaeth wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> >> No. PMS does not specify which dependency information has
> >> to be taken.
> >
> > Yes it does. Please read PMS, and do not guess as to what it says.
>
> Looki
On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 14:09:44 + (UTC)
Martin Vaeth wrote:
> > PMS defines a static dependency model
>
> No. PMS does not specify which dependency information has
> to be taken.
Yes it does. Please read PMS, and do not guess as to what it says.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.
ckage depends upon your package with [selinux], and the dependency is
mistakenly treated as met...
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
es too.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 13:00:31 + (UTC)
Martin Vaeth wrote:
> Both, dynamic and static deps are broken.
> They are broken in different ways, but both are broken.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it
means.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Descriptio
On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 12:54:08 + (UTC)
Martin Vaeth wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> >> On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 23:06:07 +0200
> >> Pacho Ramos wrote:
> >> > Maybe this could be solved by having two kinds of revisions:
> &g
ecified how they are to be stored in the tree.
Incorrect.
> Quite the opposite, PMS claims that one cannot rely on
> anything stored in /var/db
Incorrect.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 10:53:21 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> USE_EXPAND are global by definition.
Naah. They're global by a Portage configuration file limitation. In the
old days, USE flags were global too...
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 12:32:20 + (UTC)
Martin Vaeth wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > User installs foo-1.1-r1
> > Developer makes foo-1.1-r1.1
> > foo-1.1* is removed from the tree
> > User syncs
>
> How is this different from your suggestion
>
On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 16:46:07 -0500
William Hubbs wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 10:25:57PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 16:23:23 -0500
> > William Hubbs wrote:
> > > I think this could get complicated really quick though.
> > > For
ator I don't know about, that
> is going to need a lot of nesting etc to get right.
You don't want xor. You want addition.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
and user-tested
prototype. REQUIRED_USE was shoehorned in at the last minute without an
implementation.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
al auto-building systems.
(Incidentally, Exherbo has a both human- and machine-readable
implementation, which *is* used by an auto-building system, but the
syntax won't meet Gentoo approval...)
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
erienced users -- much more so than the error generated by a
> blocker dep.
...and the fix for that is to scrap REQUIRED_USE and use pkg_pretend
instead.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
you suggest? Can the VDB be fixed in another way to avoid
> such rebuilds?
There are ways of doing it, if you're prepared to make ebuild authors
put in an awful lot of work for very little gain. But it shouldn't be a
priority, and we need to fix existing breakages before doing something
ambitious like that.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
at's not really helpful advice: dynamic dependencies can't be fixed.
Instead, you should say that anyone who thinks they have an idea on how
to fix dynamic deps should think about it until they understand why
it's wrong...
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
ed so much "good enough" and "not thinking your
cunning plan all the way through" that nothing is actually correct any
more. It's one thing to get away with this occasionally, but quite
another to build an entire system upon it. We can't afford more
mistakes, and we h
.1)
>
> But I am not sure if it could be viable from a "technical" point of
> view :(
This in no way solves the problem. Consider the following course of
events:
User installs foo-1.1-r1
Developer makes foo-1.1-r1.1
foo-1.1* is removed from the tree
User syncs
--
Ciaran McCre
bility is a handy feature.
...but it doesn't actually solve the problem.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 22:05:54 +0300
Samuli Suominen wrote:
> The quality of the distribution doesn't improve by killing one of the
> most important features the package manager has.
Uh, that's a bit of an odd claim, given that dynamic deps often doesn't
do what you're a
on't really visit Forums often.
Users are so used to broken dependency resolution that they don't
complain about it very much, and even when they do, they're rarely able
to identify the actual cause of the problem.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
that with dynamic dependencies leads to
packages depending upon selinux that don't actually use selinux, right?
Thus triggering lots of totally unnecessary rebuilds on an ABI change.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
y when overlays are involved, and that the change
wasn't a change where a saved pkg_prerm uses the old dependency, not
the new one, or all the other ways this breaks.
You need to think your cunning plan the whole way through.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 23:13:06 +0200
Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 22:06:08 +0100
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 23:01:58 +0200
> > Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> > > So you suggest we work around a bug in the PM which would be a
&
On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 23:01:58 +0200
Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> So you suggest we work around a bug in the PM which would be a single
> fix. Everywhere.
Dynamic dependencies is not fixable. It's an irredeemably broken
concept.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 23:06:22 +0300
Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 21/07/14 22:50, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 22:42:23 +0300
> > Samuli Suominen wrote:
> >> people are revbumping packages for the simplest things like
> >> EAPI4->5
> &
vernight just because you protest.
Policy used to be that you'd do a revbump when you wanted users to
reinstall stuff, and you wouldn't otherwise. The only complication is
that sometimes you want users to reinstall stuff so that there's
accurate dependency information available, rather
On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 22:42:23 +0300
Samuli Suominen wrote:
> people are revbumping packages for the simplest things like EAPI4->5
EAPI changing to 5 should always get a revbump, since it causes
confusion if anyone has a USE dependency upon your package.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signatu
On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 18:22:22 +0200
Manuel Rüger wrote:
> currently there is no default link, when the website of a package
> becomes unavailable or never existed at all.
What's wrong with HOMEPAGE="()" ?
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
so it's an oddity.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
icy.
The PMS issue is what exactly happens if two eclasses and an ebuild all
set KEYWORDS. (With current EAPIs, there's no merging done.)
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, 17 Jul 2014 20:28:47 +0200
Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El jue, 17-07-2014 a las 17:03 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
> > On Thu, 17 Jul 2014 10:23:20 -0400
> > Rich Freeman wrote:
> > > I think that sticking KEYWORDS in an eclass is something that
> >
On Thu, 17 Jul 2014 10:23:20 -0400
Rich Freeman wrote:
> I think that sticking KEYWORDS in an eclass is something that should
> probably never happen.
It used to be banned by PMS, for other reasons...
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
ried to give them that. Unfortunately, getting software to do "what you
expect" sometimes looks OK in the short term.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Wed, 2 Jul 2014 00:38:53 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> || (
> amd64? (
I thought we were trying to discourage that abomination...
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
|| (
> >=foo/bar-3.5:3[${MULTILIB_USEDEP}]
> >=foo/bar-4.5:4[${MULTILIB_USEDEP}]
> >=foo/bar-5.2:5[${MULTILIB_USEDEP}]
> )"
>
> would solve such a problem correctly.
No it wouldn't... Best version first in a || block.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
give good error messages when
it breaks.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 12:17:52 -0400
Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-06-14 at 16:56 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 11:50:29 -0400
> > Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2014-06-14 at 16:13 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > &g
On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:16:20 +
hasufell wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh:
> > On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 15:32:56 +
> > hasufell wrote:
> >> Ciaran McCreesh:
> >>> On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:41:51 +0200
> >>> Michał Górny wrote:
> >>>
On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 11:50:29 -0400
Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-06-14 at 16:13 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:41:51 +0200
> > Michał Górny wrote:
> > > However, this means that we force much more rebuilds than
> > > nece
On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 15:32:56 +
hasufell wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh:
> > On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:41:51 +0200
> > Michał Górny wrote:
> >> However, this means that we force much more rebuilds than
> >> necessary.
> >
> > This shouldn't be conside
On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:41:51 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> However, this means that we force much more rebuilds than necessary.
This shouldn't be considered to be a problem.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
ans just
leads to things intermittently going horribly wrong.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
o add a new wrong line must previously fix an
existing wrong line.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, 15 May 2014 14:44:58 -0400
Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
> wrote:
> > On Thu, 15 May 2014 17:15:32 +
> > hasufell wrote:
> >> Ciaran McCreesh:
> >> > Sandboxing isn't about security.
> >>
On Thu, 15 May 2014 20:35:41 +0200
"Thomas D." wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Sandboxing isn't about security. It's about catching mistakes.
>
> From Wikipedia
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandbox_%28computer_security%29):
> > In computer sec
On Thu, 15 May 2014 17:15:32 +
hasufell wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh:
> > Sandboxing isn't about security.
> >
>
> Sure it is.
Then where do the bug reports for all the "security violations"
possible with sandbox go?
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
t is a good behavior to automatically disable
> something you can call a "security feature"? At least there should be
> a warning, not?
Sandboxing isn't about security. It's about catching mistakes.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, 12 May 2014 12:44:38 -0400
Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 12 May 2014 17:46:57 +0200
> > Alexander Berntsen wrote:
> >> On 12/05/14 17:23, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> >> > A flag being p
On Mon, 12 May 2014 17:46:57 +0200
Alexander Berntsen wrote:
> On 12/05/14 17:23, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > A flag being present or not in FEATURES does not mean anything, and
> > if you're assuming that it does then you have a bug.
> Please try to stay on topic, and don
assuming that it does then you have a bug.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
side the Qt team without
> permission. Since it's not ready for the tree yet, it was immediately
> removed again.
So the Qt team is overriding the QA team now? Is it alphabetical?
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
t; for accepting it whenever it is convenient, while silently adding
> > the competing method in-tree so it's all decided now anyway ...
>
> Conditions for accepting it? What are those, and how have they
> changed?
The conditions have always been "someone has to be able to ex
On Fri, 28 Mar 2014 15:46:49 -0400
Wyatt Epp wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
> wrote:
> > On Thu, 27 Mar 2014 03:53:47 +0100
> > yac wrote:
> >> What I was describing is the difference between fundamental
> >> properties of categor
categories aren't just "a label" for a package. They're fundamentally
part of a package's name.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
; KMNAME="kde-workspace"
> inherit systemd kde4-meta flag-o-matic user
>
> ^ from kdm-4.11.7.ebuild
These look a lot like they're just parameters to an eclass... An
alternative approach is to make this explicit, rather than having
zillions of environment variables:
http://exherbo.org/docs/exheres-for-smarties.html#exlib_parameters
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
e current lack of intuitive GUI and the lack of
statistical analysis both have absolutely nothing to do with not having
tags...
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 10:55:38 -0400
Damien Levac wrote:
> A lot of people already replied to this question: package search.
Sure, but can you point to prior examples of this kind of stuff
actually working?
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, 23 Mar 2014 00:04:08 +
hasufell wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh:
> > On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 15:33:27 -0700 Alec Warner
> > wrote:
> >> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Package_Tags
> >
> > And do what with them? Right now this is a solution without a
>
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 15:33:27 -0700
Alec Warner wrote:
> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Package_Tags
And do what with them? Right now this is a solution without a problem.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 16:41:58 +
hasufell wrote:
> But the question is... what sane alternative to REQUIRED_USE? That
> will also have impact on a lot of eclasses.
Either pkg_pretend, or Exherbo's MYOPTIONS.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
message that's
produced.
So really we should just scrap REQUIRED_USE in EAPI 6, and migrate any
ebuilds currently using it to a sane alternative.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
it's suggesting how to deal with an unsatisfiable resolution.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
d in those
> checks are no longer used. It's currently reasonable to have this
> amount of checks, but imagine it growing to what you would need for
> 10 versions; that'd be a different story, but perhaps it is too early
> to wonder about this now.
Removing EAPIs doesn't help you: you still need to be able to uninstall
things.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
; QA team's decisions require more than a flip of a dime; it takes a
> little more involvement, as well as solid evidence and reasoning.
Why?
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 14:45:12 +0100
hasufell wrote:
> On 02/02/2014 02:43 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 14:36:54 +0100 hasufell
> > wrote:
> >> * set homepage to games project page
> >
> > Why? Eclasses setting a homepage was never a go
On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 14:36:54 +0100
hasufell wrote:
> * set homepage to games project page
Why? Eclasses setting a homepage was never a good idea...
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 22:59:59 +0100
Michał Górny wrote:
> Dnia 2014-01-26, o godz. 21:35:27
> Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a):
> > On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 13:21:44 -0800
> > Alec Warner wrote:
> > > Sorry, I work on Portage. What I'm saying is that We are free to
>
XDG_*, well that is someone else's can of worms.
Changing Portage to hide the issue is a bad idea, since it makes it
harder for developers to notice that that's a problem they need to fix.
Although maybe you could set XDG_* to something that will give a big
noisy sandbox violation fo
hat people would know what it meant. Maybe we need a bit more
text to clear up the misconception we see every now and again that
"undefined" somehow means "it's ok to assume what some version of
Portage happens to do, since the specification doesn't say you can't
do
t; (And people not using repoman will have some extra fun!)
Well couldn't QA start focusing on non-cosmetic issues? I can provide a
list if you need it.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
get confused by "stable use masks". This is
going to be even worse: users aren't going to understand why a noarch
package isn't available for them.
Thirdly, you have to decide how to deal with long chains and cycles in
noarch dependencies.
Fourthly, the interaction with
nfigs and the like. The way around that is to allow
communication via pipes, still in a Unix-friendly manner. This can be
implemented nearly transparently.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
orrific abuses commonly used in the
tree...), and the well-documented REQUIRED_USE screwup.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
201 - 300 of 3510 matches
Mail list logo
