Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages with same name was - Conversion of Emacs virtual packages
On Wed, 16 May 2007 17:23:58 -0400 William L. Thomson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On that note I would hope the vim/vi peeps would rename. app-vim/ant Policy says to go with upstream's naming. This is, after all, why we have categories. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages with same name was - Conversion of Emacs virtual packages
On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 08:49 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Wed, 16 May 2007 17:23:58 -0400 William L. Thomson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On that note I would hope the vim/vi peeps would rename. app-vim/ant Policy says to go with upstream's naming. This is, after all, why we have categories. Sure, and along those lines upstream seems to call it ant_menu or ant_menu.vim :) http://www.vim.org/scripts/script.php?script_id=155 -- William L. Thomson Jr. Gentoo/Java signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages with same name was - Conversion of Emacs virtual packages
On Thu, 17 May 2007 10:59:09 -0400 William L. Thomson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Policy says to go with upstream's naming. This is, after all, why we have categories. Sure, and along those lines upstream seems to call it ant_menu or ant_menu.vim :) http://www.vim.org/scripts/script.php?script_id=155 Not for the versions in the tree they don't. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages with same name was - Conversion of Emacs virtual packages
On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 16:03 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Thu, 17 May 2007 10:59:09 -0400 William L. Thomson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Policy says to go with upstream's naming. This is, after all, why we have categories. Sure, and along those lines upstream seems to call it ant_menu or ant_menu.vim :) http://www.vim.org/scripts/script.php?script_id=155 Not for the versions in the tree they don't. You mean 0.5.3 released 2003-12-28. IMHO that borderlines a stale package or one that should be punted. Or at min bumped since there has been two releases since then. With the latest one being 0.5.5 2006-11-19. So is that app really used? Does anyone care about? Sure looks like not in both cases. -- William L. Thomson Jr. Gentoo/Java signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages with same name was - Conversion of Emacs virtual packages
On Thu, 17 May 2007 12:48:11 -0400 William L. Thomson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.vim.org/scripts/script.php?script_id=155 Not for the versions in the tree they don't. You mean 0.5.3 released 2003-12-28. IMHO that borderlines a stale package or one that should be punted. Or at min bumped since there has been two releases since then. With the latest one being 0.5.5 2006-11-19. Eh, perhaps the vim herd could take a look at that -- maybe someone should file a bug about it. Although perhaps the version in the tree works just fine, which is why no-one's noticed that there's an update. So is that app really used? Does anyone care about? Sure looks like not in both cases. 'Twas added to the tree at user request. Given that Java's basically a dead language and only being used for legacy applications now, it's probably not necessary any more. But then, keeping at least one of the colliding app-vim/ packages around is probably a good idea if only to remind people why categories exist... -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages with same name was - Conversion of Emacs virtual packages
On Thu, May 17, 2007 12:53 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: 'Twas added to the tree at user request. Given that Java's basically a dead language and only being used for legacy applications now, it's I'm having a hard time trying to figure out how you justify calling Java a dead language. -- ...jsled -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages with same name was - Conversion of Emacs virtual packages
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Josh Sled wrote: On Thu, May 17, 2007 12:53 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: 'Twas added to the tree at user request. Given that Java's basically a dead language and only being used for legacy applications now, it's I'm having a hard time trying to figure out how you justify calling Java a dead language. It's not C++ nor Ruby. Anyway, offtopic :) - -- Vlastimil Babka (Caster) Gentoo/Java -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGTI0ztbrAj05h3oQRAiSHAJ9/3FzS1r+rnfxTXsqN0aOJh3fveQCfW2TV 4JREonUvieuIMHkFMcAFI5o= =JB4J -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages with same name was - Conversion of Emacs virtual packages
On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 13:07 -0400, Josh Sled wrote: On Thu, May 17, 2007 12:53 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: 'Twas added to the tree at user request. Given that Java's basically a dead language and only being used for legacy applications now, it's I'm having a hard time trying to figure out how you justify calling Java a dead language. It's called baiting. He's purposefully calling Java dead in a conversation with someone from the Java team in an attempt to bring on an emotional response rather than technical. In case you're wondering, you feel for it. *grin* -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages with same name was - Conversion of Emacs virtual packages
On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 13:07 -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote: On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 19:52 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: New-style virtuals are just *packages*, or did I get this completely wrong? So how is this situation different from two packages with the same name, but in different categories? It isn't different. That's the problem. If you have two packages with the same name, you have the same problem. On that note I would hope the vim/vi peeps would rename. app-vim/ant It's quite annoying when one needs the real ANT ( dev-java/ant ), not the vim menu plugin so vi can invoke ant or etc. IMHO app-vim/ant should really be app-vim/vim-ant or something other than just ant. Personal pet peeve of some time now, just lacked the occasion to mention it till now ;) -- William L. Thomson Jr. Gentoo/Java signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages with same name was - Conversion of Emacs virtual packages
It isn't different. That's the problem. If you have two packages with the same name, you have the same problem. On that note I would hope the vim/vi peeps would rename. app-vim/ant and app-vim/sudo IMHO app-vim/ant should really be app-vim/vim-ant or something other than just ant. or app-vim/sudo-syntax and app-vim/ant-syntax as there already are a number of ebuilds following that scheme... regards Thilo pgps9kzRfHjIU.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages with same name was - Conversion of Emacs virtual packages
Thilo Bangert napsal(a): It isn't different. That's the problem. If you have two packages with the same name, you have the same problem. On that note I would hope the vim/vi peeps would rename. app-vim/ant and app-vim/sudo and app-xemacs/emerge, g -- jakub signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages with same name was - Conversion of Emacs virtual packages
While I always was for uniq package names, tree-wide, renaming doesn't solve anything. Gentoo's binary packages are fundamentally broken. You can't have two binary packages of the same ebuild differing e.g. in use flags, architecture, toolchain, etc. pp. either. Carsten signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages with same name was - Conversion of Emacs virtual packages
On Thu, 17 May 2007 00:37:23 +0200 Thilo Bangert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It isn't different. That's the problem. If you have two packages with the same name, you have the same problem. On that note I would hope the vim/vi peeps would rename. app-vim/ant and app-vim/sudo That's getting the axe in a few weeks. IMHO app-vim/ant should really be app-vim/vim-ant or something other than just ant. or app-vim/sudo-syntax and app-vim/ant-syntax as there already are a number of ebuilds following that scheme... Well, sudo and ant aren't syntax plugins, so that wouldn't make any sense. Also, we're keeping the same names that the upstream script writers use, just as we do everywhere else in Gentoo. The whole point of having category names is so that we can have two packages w/ the same name and not have issues. -- Mike Kelly -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages with same name was - Conversion of Emacs virtual packages
Quoting Mike Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Thu, 17 May 2007 00:37:23 +0200 Thilo Bangert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... IMHO app-vim/ant should really be app-vim/vim-ant or something other than just ant. or app-vim/sudo-syntax and app-vim/ant-syntax as there already are a number of ebuilds following that scheme... Well, sudo and ant aren't syntax plugins, so that wouldn't make any sense. Also, we're keeping the same names that the upstream script writers use, just as we do everywhere else in Gentoo. The whole point of having category names is so that we can have two packages w/ the same name and not have issues. All this is so familiar... where have I heard that before? http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/27770/focus=27838 The thread is pretty long, but some of the issues of the current thread have been covered in length there. -- Georgi This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
