Pardon the delay, been putting this one off since it's going to be a
fun one to address, and will be a bit long :)
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 12:34:00PM +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
What I mean is compatibility with current portage versions. Current
versions do not understand EAPI. There would
Don't forget the fact that bash must be execed for normal parses, and
that python has extremely slow string handling when not using one of
the standard parsing modules (that work in C). To put my money where my
mouth is, I've tarred up my code and put it on my dev space:
On Friday 26 August 2005 09:35, Brian Harring wrote:
Any parser that doesn't support full bash syntax isn't acceptable from
where I sit; re: slow down, 2.1 is around 33% faster sourcing the
whole tree (some cases 60% faster, some 5%, etc). The speed up's are
also what allow template's to be
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 14:50:52 +0200 Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| ps. People please be aware that this is still alpha in the sense of
| not being complete. For better working it should probably support if
| statements properly, and at least do variable substitution. It would
| mean
On Friday 26 August 2005 16:58, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 14:50:52 +0200 Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| ps. People please be aware that this is still alpha in the sense of
| not being complete. For better working it should probably support if
| statements
On Friday 26 August 2005 17:11, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
On Friday 26 August 2005 16:58, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 14:50:52 +0200 Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| ps. People please be aware that this is still alpha in the sense of
| not being complete. For better
On Friday 26 August 2005 16:58, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 14:50:52 +0200 Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| ps. People please be aware that this is still alpha in the sense of
| not being complete. For better working it should probably support if
| statements
On Tuesday 23 August 2005 18:00, Brian Harring wrote:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 03:20:16PM +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
To allow for this to work with current portage versions, perhaps it
would be an option to introduce a new extension for .ebuild scripts
that use it's functionality. That
On Thursday 07 July 2005 22:42, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 10:52:06AM -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
strlen(EBUILD_FORMAT) * 19546 = 249K
strlen(EAPI) * 19546 = 77K
strlen(EV) * 19546 = 39K
Where 19546 is the number if ebuilds in the tree as.
So, the size
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 03:20:16PM +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
To allow for this to work with current portage versions, perhaps it would
be an option to introduce a new extension for .ebuild scripts that use
it's functionality. That would allow all non-EAPI aware portage versions
to
On Thursday 07 July 2005 14:19, Ned Ludd wrote:
I would be in favor of EAPI= or an even shorter variable name.
EAPI is probably the best name, EV makes it possible to confuse it with
PV-like variables, referring to the versions of the package, not portage
itself.
--
Diego Flameeyes Pettenò
On 07/07/05, Ned Ludd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would be in favor of EAPI= or an even shorter variable name.
strlen(EBUILD_FORMAT) * 19546 = 249K
strlen(EAPI) * 19546 = 77K
strlen(EV) * 19546 = 39K
Where 19546 is the number if ebuilds in the tree as.
If you're that interested in saving
twofourtysix wrote:
On 07/07/05, Ned Ludd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would be in favor of EAPI= or an even shorter variable name.
strlen(EBUILD_FORMAT) * 19546 = 249K
strlen(EAPI) * 19546 = 77K
strlen(EV) * 19546 = 39K
Where 19546 is the number if ebuilds in the tree as.
On Thu, 2005-07-07 at 08:19 -0400, Ned Ludd wrote:
I would be in favor of EAPI= or an even shorter variable name.
strlen(EBUILD_FORMAT) * 19546 = 249K
strlen(EAPI) * 19546 = 77K
strlen(EV) * 19546 = 39K
Where 19546 is the number if ebuilds in the tree as.
So, the size of the tree is
On Thu, 2005-07-07 at 20:28 +0200, Maurice van der Pot wrote:
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 10:52:06AM -0700, Donnie Berkholz intended to write:
size for the options above 0.05%, 0.02% and 0.01% respectively. In
any case, nearly irrelevant to its present size.
Mixed up my decimal points and
On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 08:41:43PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Wednesday 06 July 2005 08:20 pm, Sven Wegener wrote:
We would like to introduce a new ebuild variable named EBUILD_FORMAT,
seems like the name is much longer than it needs to be ... what's wrong with
say 'EVER' ?
It's fine
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sven Wegener wrote:
On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 08:41:43PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Wednesday 06 July 2005 08:20 pm, Sven Wegener wrote:
We would like to introduce a new ebuild variable named EBUILD_FORMAT,
seems like the name is much longer
On Thu, 2005-07-07 at 03:09 +0200, Sven Wegener wrote:
And EVER automatically was E-VER for me, never had the idea to read it
as ever. Does that count as being addicted to Gentoo?
Yes it does
--
Olivier Crête
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
x86 Security Liaison
signature.asc
Description: This is a
Sven Wegener wrote:
And EVER automatically was E-VER for me, never had the idea to read it
as ever. Does that count as being addicted to Gentoo?
Sven
Under the influence at the very least...
--
Joshua Baergen
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Jul 6, 2005, at 8:01 PM, Nathan L. Adams wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sven Wegener wrote:
On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 08:41:43PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Wednesday 06 July 2005 08:20 pm, Sven Wegener wrote:
We would like to introduce a new ebuild variable
On Thursday 07 July 2005 12:36 am, Kito wrote:
On Jul 6, 2005, at 8:01 PM, Nathan L. Adams wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sven Wegener wrote:
On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 08:41:43PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Wednesday 06 July 2005 08:20 pm, Sven Wegener wrote:
21 matches
Mail list logo
