Roy Bamford wrote:
> On 2009.06.07 10:34, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> > On Sun, 07 Jun 2009, Steven J Long wrote:
>>
>> > I'd just like to know what the implications would be for users if
>> we
>> > kept the .ebuild extension, and a new PMS were rolled out stating
>> > that the mangler were allo
Joe Peterson schrieb:
Bernd Steinhauser wrote:
And that is, what this is about, making EAPI bumps as less painful as
possible. The filename is the easiest solution for that.
In any design, there are "easy" short-cuts that can be taken. But
sometimes these short-cuts break paradigms that are f
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 09:02:29 -0600
Joe Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But almost all software deals with this transparently - no need to
> expose it to the user, and sticking the version in the filename is
> both fragile (renaming the file can alter it) and seems like a hack.
The typical us
Bernd Steinhauser wrote:
> And that is, what this is about, making EAPI bumps as less painful as
> possible. The filename is the easiest solution for that.
In any design, there are "easy" short-cuts that can be taken. But
sometimes these short-cuts break paradigms that are fundamental. If you
w
Luca Barbato schrieb:
Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
The simplest way is to change the syncpoint in the new package
manager and
leave the previous uri with a compatibility repo for the older ones.
So we add a new repo each time a new EAPI comes out? Sounds like a big
mess.
It isn't you just keep
On 10 Jun 2008, at 13:13, Luca Barbato wrote:
but I dislike empty theories or hardly searched corner cases that
could be avoided with half of the effort necessary to get there.
Yoy mean like adopting GLEP55, right?
- ferdy
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 13:13:34 +0200
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > So you're volunteering to convert the entire tree to the new EAPI
> > all in one go every two months?
>
> I don't see the need and I won't see the problem given right now what
> is interesting i
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
So you're volunteering to convert the entire tree to the new EAPI all
in one go every two months?
I don't see the need and I won't see the problem given right now what is
interesting is the set of improvements that aren't forward incompatible.
Being that the case you'd
Piotr Jaroszyński wrote:
The simplest way is to change the syncpoint in the new package manager and
leave the previous uri with a compatibility repo for the older ones.
So we add a new repo each time a new EAPI comes out? Sounds like a big mess.
It isn't you just keep 2 repos, one with the mi
> The simplest way is to change the syncpoint in the new package manager and
> leave the previous uri with a compatibility repo for the older ones.
So we add a new repo each time a new EAPI comes out? Sounds like a big mess.
--
Best Regards,
Piotr Jaroszyński
���^�X��� ��(��&j)b�b�
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 12:22:03 +0200
Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tiziano Müller wrote:
> > ... and package managers which don't do that already still fail.
>
> To put everything in perspective all this discussion is done in order
> to workaround the issue of an old and outdated package
Tiziano Müller wrote:
... and package managers which don't do that already still fail.
To put everything in perspective all this discussion is done in order to
workaround the issue of an old and outdated package manager that cannot
be upgraded once it syncs from a too new repository.
The si
Luca Barbato wrote:
> Tiziano Müller wrote:
>> Joe Peterson wrote:
>>
>>> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
And a file extension is far less obscurely complex than enforcing
arbitrary syntax restrictions upon ebuilds.
>>> I disagree. One is exposed to devs only as ebuild syntax; the other is
>>>
13 matches
Mail list logo
