.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
input validation. Perhaps we could patch our internal bash
to make it easier to catch certain other errors too.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 16:46:41 +0100
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 15:26:29 +
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 14:48:06 +0100
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
Well, unless we're talking about a theoretical package
to know what's actually been changed...
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
with blockers like PMS documentation changes and so :( )
We're not waiting for it to be approved. We're waiting for someone to
tell us what the changes are.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
specific as to how it's an issue from the spec
side please.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 16:12:37 +0100
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
RDEPEND=dev-libs/libfoo[${MULTILIB_USEDEP}]
dev-libs/libbar[ssl,${MULTILIB_USEDEP}]
This looks like it might be a bit fragile. Is it something better
addressed by an EAPI extension?
--
Ciaran McCreesh
.
- --
Ciaran McCreesh
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAlD8aPgACgkQ96zL6DUtXhGpfgCgxjrIlAp1M0gzkg4FJs2Yx+hM
290AniFiLh7uqNl8elQ/yWre1W903ZdC
=d+Zn
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
installed that IUSE dri.
- --
Ciaran McCreesh
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAlD52OMACgkQ96zL6DUtXhECCgCgkfNiAX7Z7M3piVUN21Hj/KAy
kwsAoMPZISStAtGjk2uXtPT3FbOYox6W
=uz0E
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
monkey-related packages. It doesn't affect server
users. Minimal is irrelevant.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 07:47:18 -0800
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
REPLACING_VERSIONS always refers to packages with identical SLOT to
the current package
No it doesn't. If you have foo-1:a and foo-2:b installed, and then you
install foo-1:b, it replaces both 1:a and 2:b.
--
Ciaran
people to stop making
incorrect assumptions.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 12:05:03 -0500
James Cloos cl...@jhcloos.com wrote:
CM == Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com writes:
CM Which is a good thing, since it will force people to stop making
CM incorrect assumptions.
No, its a bad thing because it makes it harder to grep out
category name, consult PMS. If you want to know what categories
are actually present, consult 'profiles/categories' or your package
mangler.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 12:14:38 -0500
Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 17/01/13 11:47 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 07:47:18 -0800 Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org
wrote:
REPLACING_VERSIONS always refers to packages
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 12:25:46 -0500
Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 17/01/13 12:15 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 17/01/13 11:47 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
If you have foo-1:a and foo-2:b
On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 14:35:12 -0500
James Cloos cl...@jhcloos.com wrote:
CM == Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com writes:
CM That's what's known as doing it wrong. You should be querying
CM your package mangler for a list of categories, not doing an 'ls'.
ls(1) isn't relevant
On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:03:20 +0100
Gilles Dartiguelongue e...@gentoo.org wrote:
- if has ${EAPI-0} 0 1 2 3 4 has doc ${IUSE} ; then
+ if has ${EAPI:-0} 0 1 2 3 4 in_iuse doc ; then
This is still wrong... You can't use IUSE like that.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:35:59 +0100
Gilles Dartiguelongue e...@gentoo.org wrote:
Le dimanche 13 janvier 2013 à 19:09 +, Ciaran McCreesh a écrit :
On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:03:20 +0100
Gilles Dartiguelongue e...@gentoo.org wrote:
- if has ${EAPI-0} 0 1 2 3 4 has doc ${IUSE
the only project in the world still
using CVS, but the Git migration is never going to happen, so
mentioning it just makes everyone angry.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
portage (and sandboxed
installation) and that lang-specific package managers.
The problem here is that CPAN, Gems etc don't follow their own
specifications.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
to for most rails apps.
Last time I looked at it, Gems' YAMLs file weren't legal YAML, and
couldn't be parsed by anything except Ruby's hacked version of Syck. So
yes, you have to.
- --
Ciaran McCreesh
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux
On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 14:37:37 +0100
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
c) 'fixing' the use.stable.mask feature and wording it in such a way
that it would apply to EAPI 5 (or 6) packages independently of
profiles EAPI.
So what EAPI would be used to parse use.stable.mask?
--
Ciaran McCreesh
On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 03:17:06 +0100
Sebastian Pipping sp...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 20.12.2012 19:14, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
The tree is a database. It belongs in /var/db/.
I don't see /var/db in the latest release of the Filesystem Hierarchy
Standard:
http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs
will most likely ignore this
thread and keep doing our job like we do for many years.
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m93x01rSVK1qjvxfho1_1280.jpg
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
to
contain enough information for a PM to configure them properly...
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
/var/lib would be a better choice? It would also take care of
the issue with fetch-restricted files.
The tree is a database. It belongs in /var/db/.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
that path in...
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 19:44:36 +0100
Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
We should go with a shorter (easier to remember, easier to type)
path and move things at least one level up. Two would be even
better.
You shouldn't ever be typing
now, as this feature was never formally announced as far as I'm aware,
and all the mentions of it were ages ago and not available to stable
users at the time.
We really shouldn't... EAPI 5 is the way to go, not preserve-libs.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:56:11 +0100
Diego Elio Pettenò flamee...@flameeyes.eu wrote:
Any other suggestions on where to place it? And please don't say
/var/lib because that would usually be backed up.
/var/db
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
in
general...
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
older versions of portage
on emerge --sync?
You can't put subslots in updates, since it's not EAPI controlled.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
the benefits of the
sub-slot/slot-operator, since the sub-slot has to be written to the
vdb for both the package and all rdeps with slot-operator atoms.
If subslots are involved, a revbump is necessary when switching to
EAPI 5.
- --
Ciaran McCreesh
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG
. A move is specifically for a rename, not for
merging two existing packages together.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
and monitors to drobbins upon request.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 17:26:38 +0100
Theo Chatzimichos tampak...@gentoo.org wrote:
+1 and btw move the devmanual in the wiki :D
That would rather go against the original idea behind the devmanual,
which was that it was supposed to be high quality and authoritative.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
code. It's to ensure that the code you would otherwise be
copying and pasting is correct.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
the impression that there is such
a thing as PORTAGE_NONFATAL. You should be reading the spec, not code.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 14:24:29 -0700
Gregory M. Turner g...@malth.us wrote:
On 10/20/2012 4:05 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 03:52:49 -0700
Gregory M. Turner g...@malth.us wrote:
Took me a while, but I think I see why this is correct, now (mostly
-- see below). The source
On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 17:45:13 +0100
Steven J. Long sl...@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk wrote:
On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 06:56:14PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
A := only makes sense for a dependency that is present both at build
time and at runtime. Currently, the only place you should be seeing
any other changes. Are there any circumstances
where the ebuild would behave differently and/or break?
In EAPIs after 1, as well as adding shiny new toys, we've removed
various deprecated things, split up phase functions, and made some
helpers error on invalid input.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 19:58:04 +0200
justin j...@gentoo.org wrote:
Any suggestion how to check for a USE being IUSE in an eclass?
You can't. See the zillion previous discussions on this subject.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 02 Oct 2012 13:51:01 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 30/09/12 05:53 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 14:42:14 -0700 Brian Harring
ferri...@gmail.com wrote:
The second is that it starts the conceptual shift
would be treated as
two different, unrelated specs. If we're doing that, though, then
there's not really any point in the proposal -- we want the model
change, not just for := dependencies, but also to allow us to fix some
of the awful mess that is ||.
- --
Ciaran McCreesh
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE
of the || ( dep:build? ( a ) dep:run? ( b ) )
case.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 16:56:56 -0700
Brian Harring ferri...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 10:53:40PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
But here's the thing: when you sell something as pragmatic, what
you're really saying is it's wrong, I know it's wrong, and I'm
going to pretend
On Mon, 1 Oct 2012 02:01:32 -0700
Brian Harring ferri...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 08:13:49AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
x? ( build: a run: b ) *is* nested conflicting.
You're still failing to understand the point of labels parsing
rules, though: the point is to make
is not difficult, and the extra cost is worth it to
get a good design.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
it is to do it cleanly.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
problematic eclasses) is that it tries to do far too much all in one
place. More smaller eclasses is a good thing.
- --
Ciaran McCreesh
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAlBnGacACgkQ96zL6DUtXhFFCgCfXr4BzUaN7L/WaAtYV//JOkjW
ES4AoNQU0/PwOBdzBTgspOt45V/2FDxG
that the package
manager defines usex prior to sourcing the eclass.
It's also not a good idea to assume that usex is a function.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
. Your
misappropriation of use flags doesn't have that.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
.
You've also still not provided any kind of reference implementation,
and your reference implementation section is still written with a
complete lack of awareness of how dependency resolution is actually
done.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
of it until we've been able to have
a play with an implementation.
- --
Ciaran McCreesh
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAlBhyYMACgkQ96zL6DUtXhGPsQCeN6muE82mJOPm9aox2zd1r8p0
5scAn3JkHsHGqPkpBJNCH4Nb94zW7b5H
=LMaV
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:17:07 +0200
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 09/25/2012 05:10 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:04:55 +0200 hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org
wrote:
Do we need an implementation beforehand? Afaik zac said
this is just
the things we had to think about for SDEPEND-style suggestions... There
are likely to be things I've not thought of specific to this method
that won't crop up until someone tries to deliver a decent
implementation. This isn't a trivial feature.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
as exists. In this case, any reasonable observer will conclude that
for this particular problem, having a reasonable reference
implementation and a bunch of ebuilds to play with before we spend any
more time on discussion would be extremely helpful.
- --
Ciaran McCreesh
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE
if you don't try to do anything with it...
- --
Ciaran McCreesh
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAlBh2xgACgkQ96zL6DUtXhGyFwCfYnK+RGbE+bR1Y53t/X3P7UKb
OW4An3fjTeXsXaksDTSAwf/yENunCGpC
=bWvu
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
to deal with an optional dependency which is not
enabled at all?
I mean the *entire* thing I wrote.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
in all kinds
of whitespace-related mess, another option is cat/pkg[=2.3].
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 08:43:11 +0200
Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
El jue, 20-09-2012 a las 02:14 -0400, Alexandre Rostovtsev escribió:
Revised to use a separate variable for the name of the flag instead
of reading IUSE, as suggested by Ciaran McCreesh. As a result of
this change
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 09:13:40 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
PMS may not need to be fixed, just the spec
PMS is the spec, and it doesn't need fixing, since it accurately
reflects the situation we're dealing with.
- --
Ciaran McCreesh
specific about where it will and won't
work. It definitely won't work everywhere in global scope, for example.
There's also the question of whether we effectively want to force
merging and normalising of variables to be done on the bash side, rather
than inside the package mangler.
- --
Ciaran McCreesh
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 19:52:11 +0200
Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
The problem is that I suspect that, maybe, this behavior was present
and supported even in eapi0
It wasn't.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
that new hypothetical behavior.
Sure it can. Portage supports what's in the spec. If you're relying
upon undefined behaviour, it's your problem when it stops working.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
(ebuilds/eclasses already using it) unchanged.
You are welcome to read PMS yourself if you like.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 20:13:00 +0200
Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
El jue, 20-09-2012 a las 18:55 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 19:54:43 +0200
Pacho Ramos pa...@gentoo.org wrote:
That isn't necessary what could occur if the behavior changes
unexpectedly
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 14:23:51 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
I'm biased, so to me just auditing what portage does would be good
enough. :D
You also need to audit what Portage did since EAPI 0 was introduced.
- --
Ciaran McCreesh
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 15:22:43 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 20/09/12 02:24 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 14:23:51 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius
a...@gentoo.org wrote
/resolution-fdp.png
(That's a small part of Gentoo, from a while back, with X not enabled.
It's far worse if X is on too.)
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
. You'll need to use an independent variable to get
this information.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:33:13 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 19/09/12 03:37 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 15:26:44 -0400 Alexandre Rostovtsev
tetrom...@gentoo.org wrote:
Pacho Ramos has suggested making
than trying to
lock down the value of globals in general.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 23:24:29 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 22:14:18 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 23:03:05 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
No, you're not guaranteed to get the ebuild's value
to this
thread. If you really want to discuss archaeology, you're welcome to
start another thread, and see if anyone cares to do the work to give
you a detailed answer.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
be happy to point you in the direction of all the previous
discussions of this kind of thing, if you have difficulty finding them.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 00:30:25 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 23:18:31 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 00:13:41 +0200
If you care, then you should consider finding a good solution
which will fix the code now
to do for the experimental EAPI 5-hdepend which
is planned [1].
What're we going to do about the zillions of unsolvable cycles that
that would create? (Does Portage detect those and error out yet?)
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:40:51 -0700
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 09/18/2012 12:29 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:25:57 -0700
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
Also, if we change the meaning of RDEPEND in the next EAPI, so that
it's a hard build-time dep
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:58:30 -0700
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 09/18/2012 12:44 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:40:51 -0700
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 09/18/2012 12:29 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:25:57 -0700
Zac Medico
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:06:06 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
So far, I'm not sure if there was a single, complete, exact problem
discussed which is solved by this syntax other than cosmetics.
Perhaps you should read the GLEP then.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:22:56 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 21:11:10 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:06:06 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
So far, I'm not sure if there was a single, complete
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:51:04 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 20:44:33 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:40:51 -0700
Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 09/18/2012 12:29 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote
of RDEPENDs are ignorable.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 23:34:29 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:08:43 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 23:06:06 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
But didn't we already point out that we can't have
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 00:01:21 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:37:19 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 23:34:29 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:08:43 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 00:58:02 -0700
Gregory M. Turner g...@malth.us wrote:
Unless I'm missing something, it seems that once we deprive the
ebuild developer of this feature, there is no simple, supported way
to retrieve the information except to depend on it.
has_version.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
, with
considerable overlap between them all.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 21:48:07 +0800
Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 17 September 2012 20:41, Ciaran McCreesh
ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 19:49:12 +0800
Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote:
Or, even easier and more straightforward: just keep using
that started
this thread, then.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
aren't.
Labels can give all the advantages of your proposal (including the
backwards compatibility, if that's desired), but without the need to
shoehorn the idea into an unsuitable syntax.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
.
If you want your proposal to go anywhere, you're going to need a
better transition plan then and then devs convert their
ebuilds/eclasses. I'd suggested it prior, but no traction there.
Your rewrite *DEPEND approach can just as easily be used with labels.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
used by eclasses to determine behaviour.
- --
Ciaran McCreesh
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAlBTmfcACgkQ96zL6DUtXhGzDgCcCn6mOes+8eswLl58ba6CBX4v
MisAoLNLzGivS6pDZHDF4YZv2poAY7K/
=/5qc
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
in gentoo-x86, nor any tree I've ever seen.
No crack pipe was involved in that decision! It's because of LINGUAS.
(Incidentally, we used : rather than @ for separation for exheres-0 for
that reason.)
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
package.mask and later remove.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
at all in any EAPI before
5, and not have the whole but define those prefix variables anyway
hack in eclasses. But apparently people are preferring to go to great
lengths not to have to use newer EAPIs...
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 11:25:05 +0200
Fabian Groffen grob...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 10-09-2012 09:32:23 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
So really we should just not support prefix at all in any EAPI
before 5, and not have the whole but define those prefix variables
anyway hack in eclasses
On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 18:55:10 -0400
Michael Orlitzky mich...@orlitzky.com wrote:
I think that dependencies are ultimately not hierarchical
Situations like foo? ( bar? ( || ( a ( b c ) ) ) ) do happen, so any
new syntax would have to be able to deal with that.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
401 - 500 of 3187 matches
Mail list logo
