On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 12:32:22 +
Patrick Lauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Portage 2.2 and others support sets, portage 2.2 even supports
> dynamic sets like the "@preserved-rebuild". Shouldn't be that hard to
> add a "live-ebuilds" dynamic set.
> (Comments on the feasibility of my idea from po
Patrick Lauer schrieb:
On Saturday 14 June 2008 14:11:12 Bernd Steinhauser wrote:
That's what metadata is there for. And ebuilds don't mind carrying a bit
more ... after all it's just one line of text.
So, what you want to do is to read every ebuild, if you want to find all
live ebuilds?
Meta
Patrick Lauer schrieb:
On Saturday 14 June 2008 14:11:12 Bernd Steinhauser wrote:
That's what metadata is there for. And ebuilds don't mind carrying a bit
more ... after all it's just one line of text.
So, what you want to do is to read every ebuild, if you want to find all
live ebuilds?
Meta
On Saturday 14 June 2008 14:11:12 Bernd Steinhauser wrote:
> > That's what metadata is there for. And ebuilds don't mind carrying a bit
> > more ... after all it's just one line of text.
>
> So, what you want to do is to read every ebuild, if you want to find all
> live ebuilds?
Metadata cache. It
Patrick Lauer schrieb:
On Saturday 14 June 2008 11:53:51 Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
What's the need for a GLEP covering "live" ebuilds and what's wrong with
- ebuilds? I made myself that question when GLEP54 was submitted and
during the initial discussion. At that time, I wasn't convi
Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
Those using paludis need just to run[1]:
~ paludis -pi1 compiz-fusion --dl-reinstall-scm always --compact \
~--show-reasons none
and what about
# emerge @compiz [1]
Simpler isn't it?
Or
# emaint -r world[2]
# emerge -u compiz-fusion
[1] you you can do
On Saturday 14 June 2008 11:53:51 Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> What's the need for a GLEP covering "live" ebuilds and what's wrong with
> - ebuilds? I made myself that question when GLEP54 was submitted and
> during the initial discussion. At that time, I wasn't convinced of the
> need f
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
What's the need for a GLEP covering "live" ebuilds and what's wrong with
- - ebuilds? I made myself that question when GLEP54 was submitted and
during the initial discussion. At that time, I wasn't convinced of the
need for such a GLEP. Now I thin
Tiziano Müller wrote:
Luca Barbato wrote:
Tiziano Müller wrote:
@lu_zero: I don't think we can get away without having the pm know what a
live-ebuild exactly is and when to re-install it.
a live ebuild is a template, every time it has to be evaluated it acts
as a normal ebuild with the versio
Luca Barbato wrote:
> Tiziano Müller wrote:
>> @lu_zero: I don't think we can get away without having the pm know what a
>> live-ebuild exactly is and when to re-install it.
>
> a live ebuild is a template, every time it has to be evaluated it acts
> as a normal ebuild with the version mentioned
[..snip..]
This doesn't, to me, really seem to be relevant to the original purpose
of the thread. Can we either start a new thread or get this one back on
topic?
welp
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
> That's true, it has at least to be aware the there's an EAPI.
> But how does such a package manager handle .ebuild-0 files? Ignore them?
> Failing because of unknown files in a package-dir?
> Should we care about package managers not being aware of the existence of
> EAPI's?
Current portage woul
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 10:27:56 +0200
Tiziano Müller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > No point. A 0 package manager still couldn't use a 0.1 ebuild.
> >
> That's true, it has at least to be aware the there's an EAPI.
> But how does such a package manager handle .ebuild-0 files?
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 09:45:37 +0200
> Tiziano Müller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> And why don't we change the versioning of the EAPI to a "X.Y" scheme
>> and demand that changes in the minor version must not break sourcing
>> of the ebuild with older package managers and t
14 matches
Mail list logo
