Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-21 Thread Robert R. Russell
On Saturday 16 May 2009 20:17:14 Nick Fortino wrote: Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sat, 16 May 2009 16:39:40 -0700 Nick Fortino nfort...@gmail.com wrote: Given the above, it should be clear that any argument which states some future improvement to the ebuild format will be impossible based

Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

2009-05-15 Thread Robert R. Russell
On Friday 15 May 2009 05:44:47 Richard Freeman wrote: Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Thu, 14 May 2009 20:06:51 +0200 Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote: Let EAPI be defined as (the part behind the = of) the first line of the ebuild starting with EAPI= Uh, so horribly utterly and

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Deprecating EAPI0

2009-03-22 Thread Robert R. Russell
On Saturday 21 March 2009 19:03:45 AllenJB wrote: Patrick Lauer wrote: Hi all, with the discussion about EAPI3 we have now 4 (or 7, depending on how you count them ;) ) EAPIs available or almost available. This is getting quite confusing. To make our lives easier I would suggest

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: what happened to /etc/init.d/hal{d,daemon,whatever} script ?

2008-12-23 Thread Robert R. Russell
On Monday 22 December 2008 11:40:32 pm Branko Badrljica wrote: Duncan wrote: Branko Badrljica bran...@avtomatika.com posted 494f1518.2020...@avtomatika.com, excerpted below, on Mon, 22 Dec 2008 05:18:32 +0100: Maybe I should have filed this as a bug, but don't have a clue to which

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Last Rites: app-portage/udept

2008-12-16 Thread Robert R. Russell
On Monday 15 December 2008 05:47:47 pm Duncan wrote: Paul Varner fuzzy...@gentoo.org posted 1229371818.21630.7.ca...@txslpc1d36.wkst.vzwnet.com, excerpted below, on Mon, 15 Dec 2008 14:10:17 -0600: # Paul Varner fuzzy...@gentoo.org (14 Dec 2008) # Dead upstream, masked for removal in ~30

Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI 2 policy for portage tree

2008-12-10 Thread Robert R. Russell
On Tuesday 09 December 2008 12:13:40 pm Petteri R├Ąty wrote: Robert R. Russell wrote: My personal opinion on this matter is pick one of the following: 1) perform the bugfix without a version bump and remain at the current EAPI version 2) perform the bugfix with a version bump and remain

Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI 2 policy for portage tree

2008-12-08 Thread Robert R. Russell
On Monday 08 December 2008 06:00:10 pm Jean-Marc Hengen wrote: snip This mail is about EAPI usage in the portage tree. Let me describe it, with what happened today: I'm running a mostly stable system (91 of 1255 installed packages are unstable), but I test here and there some packages. On of

[gentoo-dev] Questions about stabilization requests

2008-09-05 Thread Robert R. Russell
Some of the packages that I use are ~arch keyworded right now and I was wanting to ask some questions about when to file stabilization requests and about how much information needs to be provided when filling them. 1) How long do you recommend using a package before filing a stabilization