Am 06.06.19 um 17:28 schrieb Anthony G. Basile:
> Didn't we have some "archive" for old ebuilds? Maybe we can move
> it there.
What about an overlay for this purpose? Its like in real life they
come into life and leave the same way...
Despite that, I usually dig in the git repository when I
On 6/6/19 3:34 AM, Luca Barbato wrote:
> On 06/06/2019 09:05, Matt Turner wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 11:39 PM Agostino Sarubbo wrote:
>>>
>>> On giovedì 6 giugno 2019 08:25:54 CEST Luca Barbato wrote:
Anybody has hardware to test it?
>>>
>>> I can do it on timberdoodle.
>>
>> The issue
On 06/06/2019 09:05, Matt Turner wrote:
On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 11:39 PM Agostino Sarubbo wrote:
On giovedì 6 giugno 2019 08:25:54 CEST Luca Barbato wrote:
Anybody has hardware to test it?
I can do it on timberdoodle.
The issue is that the package is for "OldWorld" Macs (like 20+ years
old
On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 11:39 PM Agostino Sarubbo wrote:
>
> On giovedì 6 giugno 2019 08:25:54 CEST Luca Barbato wrote:
> > Anybody has hardware to test it?
>
> I can do it on timberdoodle.
The issue is that the package is for "OldWorld" Macs (like 20+ years
old). We recently dropped the bootloade
On giovedì 6 giugno 2019 08:25:54 CEST Luca Barbato wrote:
> Anybody has hardware to test it?
I can do it on timberdoodle.
Agostino
On 06/06/2019 07:06, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
Hi all,
for the package maintainers among you, here's the list of remaining EAPI=2
packages. Please help getting the number down to zero soon!!!
Cheers,
Andreas
sys-apps/powerpc-utils-1.1.3.18-r2
This is ancient in many different ways :) Anybody
Olivier Crête <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Mon, 08
Dec 2008 19:43:42 -0500:
> I'm not suggesting waiting any longer, just not pushing ebuilds into the
> tree until we have a stable enough version of portage that handles them
> (and if we do, then lets mark it
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 5:41 AM, Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Alec Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted
> below, on Fri, 10 Oct 2008 00:17:14 -0700:
>
>> Consider this your first and last warning from Userrel.
>
> FWIW... at least on gmane, that appears as a re
"Alec Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted
below, on Fri, 10 Oct 2008 00:17:14 -0700:
> Consider this your first and last warning from Userrel.
FWIW... at least on gmane, that appears as a response to aballier (gentoo
dev), with references headers indicating the same
first and last warning from Userrel.
-Alec
[0] Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: EAPI-2 and src_configure in eclasses
[1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/coc.xml
> I don't quite see how that deals with an eclass calling econf in its
> exported src_compile? Seems like EAPI versioning for eclasses (with
> implicit 0 only) is more what you're after for that issue (so the PM
> could suppress src_configure if src_compile is going to resolve to an
> EAPI-0 eclas
On Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 05:07:21PM +0100, Steve Long wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 17:38:11 +0200
> > Ulrich Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > By the way, do we really want to special case eapi-2 in every
> >> > eclass ? That's lot of code duplication and will ge
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 17:38:11 +0200
> Ulrich Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > By the way, do we really want to special case eapi-2 in every
>> > eclass ? That's lot of code duplication and will get even worse
>> > when we'll reach eapi-42. That would have been cool to
On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 17:07:21 +0100
Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It's illegal, according to PMS. It also won't work with Paludis,
> > since phase function definitions aren't made available until just
> > before that phase executes (there is a reason for this -- it
> > provides us with a
Alexis Ballier wrote:
> Indeed; different names could be given to different implementations of
> the same thing, but that might completely kill the point of abstracting
> it.
> Maybe eclasses should die on unknown eapi; the fact is I really hate the
> current way it's done when switching an ebuild
Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Sun, 14 Sep 2008
16:21:03 +0200:
> What I do strongly oppose is changing the meaning of the '!' symbol, as
> blockers, which should remain real blockers will not be adjusted by us,
> when changing an ebuild to EAPI 2
Jim Ramsay yazmış:
> Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 22:14:57 -0400
> > Jim Ramsay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I was personally expecting to see some sort of section called
> > > "EAPI-1" that contains something like:
> > >
> > > "EAPI-1 consists of EAPI-0 wi
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 14:20:03 +0200
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Santiago M. Mola wrote:
> > Upstream clearly states that a gmp build which tests have failed
> > shouldn't be used. I bet they deny support for users who fail to
> > follow that indication ;-)
>
> gmp isn't a key compone
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 06:19:16 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 23:16:04 -0600
> Ryan Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > if people are just going to RESTRICT tests when they fail (and they
> > will, because it's a hell of a lot easier than actually fixing
> > t
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 23:16:04 -0600
Ryan Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> if people are just going to RESTRICT tests when they fail (and they
> will, because it's a hell of a lot easier than actually fixing them),
> what's the point of having a testsuite at all? and once a testsuite is
> restricted
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 01:42:34 +0200
Bo Ørsted Andresen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Err.. Maybe this could have been phrased better but then I did expect
> you would look at the bug before commenting. The idea is to enable
> tests by default in EAPI 2 and beyond and let them stay off by
> default in
21 matches
Mail list logo
